Flop

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Welpe

OK giving this caseplay a closer look, I'm going to retract my previous post.

Here's where the rub is with that caseplay ruling. The ruling qualifies two things that make it a foul on B1, time and location.

The time is after A1 leaves the floor and the location is into A1's path from outside of A1's path.

In other words, from the ruling.



The way this ruling is written, you need both of these conditions for the foul to be on B1.

In our sample play of doom, B1 is not moving INTO A1's path because he is already there. He moves to a different spot along A1's path but he is still in the path. The timing on when A1 left the floor is irrelevant because B1 has been in the path all along.

Again, the wording of the first example in the case play ruling doesn't mention B1 being in the path, (yes, it's certainly assumed), only that B1 had a legal spot before A1 left the floor. The second play also mentions B1's position being obtained after A1 left the floor. In both cases, the rulings follow the wording of the rule, where the position of B1 is important based on whether it was obtained before or after A1 leaves the floor.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

The second play also mentions B1's position being obtained after A1 left the floor. In both cases, the rulings follow the wording of the rule, where the position of B1 is important based on whether it was obtained before or after A1 leaves the floor.

But you're excluding one important piece of criteria from the ruling in 10.6.1 C and that is that B1 has to move INTO A1's path after A1 has left the floor.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Welpe

But you're excluding one important piece of criteria from the ruling in 10.6.1 C and that is that B1 has to move INTO A1's path after A1 has left the floor.

As above, I'm not ignoring it, only discounting it as the important piece of information in the ruling. The important piece, since it's mentioned in both rulings, is whether B1 got to the spot before A1 became airborne.

In fact, check out rocky's play - 10.6.1 Sit A (b). It doesn't mention anything about whether B1 is in the path, moved into the path, moved out of the path, etc., only that B1 moved to a new spot. But since A1 was no longer airborne, it was a foul on A1.

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

In fact, check out rocky's play - 10.6.1 Sit A (b). It doesn't mention anything about whether B1 is in the path, moved into the path, moved out of the path, etc., only that B1 moved to a new spot. But since A1 was no longer airborne, it was a foul on A1.

This is what decided it for me...and so the flip side must be true. If A1 was still airborne, it would be a foul on B1 because he/she moved to a new spot after A1 was airborne.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

This is what decided it for me...and so the flip side must be true. If A1 was still airborne, it would be a foul on B1 because he/she moved to a new spot after A1 was airborne.

Exactly, no mention of moving into, or continuing to be in A1's path, only B1 being in a spot, and moving to another spot.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Exactly, no mention of moving into, or continuing to be in A1's path, only B1 being in a spot, and moving to another spot.

So if the two plays are different, why are you choosing to interpolate the less specific one to apply to fit your argument instead of the more specific one which fits ours?

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Welpe

So if the two plays are different, why are you choosing to interpolate the less specific one to apply to fit your argument instead of the more specific one which fits ours?

Both case plays involve 4 different scenarios, and each one fits the rule as written. Your interpretation about A1's path being important is only mentioned in 1 out of the 4. In fact, 10.6.1 Sit A specifically mentions 4-23-5(d) as the reference, the rule I keep refering back to. So that actually makes it more specific.