![]() |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
What really has me twisted up is the bush league way the whole change and its "interpretation" has been handled; or more precisely, mishandled. It's like they filled a room with people who have never even read a rulebook. And then when they figured out -- way too late -- that they screwed the pooch, their solution is to say "ignore the rule and just call it this way". That is horrifyingly amateurish and, in my opinion, downright insulting to officials who are trying to be professional and who have spent literally years studying the books. |
Quote:
|
Scrappy, just be thankful you don't officiate under NCAA Football rules. My head spins like a top trying to keep up with the latest interpretations and memos. :eek:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
So to cover this play, instead of going by the rule book we go by that catch all--"it only affects foul calls" |
Quote:
|
I don't see all the confusion over this (and the IF's on contact with a thrower in).
Yeah it might contradict a rule here and there, and it might be different than a definition here and there. But who cares? It's stated in black and white on what to do in these situations. How much more clarity can you ask for? If A happens apply punishment #1... |
Quote:
Situation 3 in the interps is not the same play. It emphasizes continous control but "techincally not inbounds" and "technically not in the backcourt" but our play does have continous control and is "techinically inbounds" and "technically in the backcourt". |
Quote:
Quote:
|
And The Really Sad Part About This Mess ...
... Is that we all saw it coming from a mile away. Why didn't the NFHS see this as a problem? What a bunch of knuckleheads.
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:28pm. |