In the last line of the case play he mentioned: "Inadvertantly touching someone who is out of bounds, without gaining an advantage, is not considered a violation."
Interesting; I suppose there's an inference that can be made here, and I would agree that gaining an advantage as Nevada suggests is likely outside the intent of the rule. Is that enough to call a violation in Nevada's play?
Fri Sep 10, 2010, 02:25pm
Threaded Mode
