You go Napoleon.
 

No, but I can see your short *** trying to wish the BoSox can win a World Series and knowing it is not going to happen. But then again, your wife probably understands your "shortcomings."

Re: You go Napoleon.
 

Is this supposed to be funny? Or is it a genuine attempt at insulting me? Is there some third option I'm not seeing? Well, it's not funny. . . And it's a pretty lame insult. Short, Red Sox fan, sexually inadequate. . . I think we all already knew these things, didn't we? Where's the insult? ;)

See, Rut, my post wasn't intended to insult anybody. I noticed a fairly common misuse of a word and related it to a hilarious scene from a sitcom called "Friends". You replied with a poorly thought out ad hominem statement. Maybe Rut is Phoebe's boyfriend that none of the other friends can stand. (The "I Hate That Guy" episode.) Just a thought.

Short, Red Sox fan, sexually inadequate.

[/B][/QUOTE]Don't feel bad ,Chuck. Did I ever tell you how I met my wife?

http://www.uselessgraphics.com/copy_of_flasher01.gif

Of course,when my my wife tried to cheer me up,she said " Look at it this way,Shorty. At least you're not a Red Sox fan!".

You're right. I goofed. Since A1 has released the ball, I should have written charging foul on A1.
Try the question now.

While this new wording doesn't require a foul to be called, I have written the situation to be that A1 runs over B1, under the other rules for contact that are still in place,it seems that a foul should be called on this play. Maybe you are voting for letting the whole mess go without a call of any kind.

EDIT ORIGINAL TO ADD THIS:
BTW, as an afterthought I'll add that even if the ball had NOT been released on the throw-in it could not be a PC on A1

Quote:

Quote: Originally posted by Dan_ref It's not clear from your post the throw-in is actually over but assuming it is why does the new wording require a foul must be called in your play? While this new wording doesn't require a foul to be called, I have written the situation to be that A1 runs over B1, under the other rules for contact that are still in place,it seems that a foul should be called on this play. Maybe you are voting for letting the whole mess go without a call of any kind.

Maybe I am.

[Edited by Dan_ref on Aug 1st, 2003 at 08:10 AM]

That horse is dead.
 

nevadaref,

<u>Is this a player control foul on A1?</u> Of course not; where is the ball?

<u>Is this a block on B1?</u> Of course not; who initiated the contact?

<u>Is this a double foul since both players have feet OOB?</u> Of course not; who initiated the contact?

<u>Is this there nothing to be called?</u> Of course not; who initiated the contact?

Take those rule books, ... and read some more, ref-editor!

Legal guarding position does not apply to every case of contact. It protects the proper defender from certain offenses against him. You are attempting to twist a clarification into a silver slipper for all occasions.
Why?

mick

Here's the ruling from the press release version:


Does anyone have the rulebook yet to tell us what, verbatim, the rule states now? (If not, maybe we should wait until that comes out - remember all the debates about the blood timeout rule????)


Also, at some point before the season begins, the NFHS will publish its annual interpretations. My guess is that this editorial change will be cleared up here.

Seems to me that we need a definition of 2 things.

Playing court:

Legal Guarding position:

Good grief!
 

CHUCK! Please tell everyone that you don't watch "Friends!" Please! Hurry!! :D

Next thing you, you'll tell us that you're a "Melrose Place" fan, too. :p

Re: Good grief!
 

I'm not ashamed to admit that I watched about the first 3 seasons of Friends, back when it was actually (not supposably) funny, and they weren't all sleeping together.

I couldn't even tell you what channel it's on.

That horse rides again!
 

Mick, You wrote this 4 hours after I posted this correction:By your process of elimination responses, I gather you believe that a charging foul on A1 is the proper call. My point in this post is that this is a block/charge play for which the correct call is obvious, but under this new interpretation the proper call will no longer be correct because the defender has a foot on the OOB line.
As for this non-sequitor comment: I never said it did, but it certainly does apply to block/charge situations, which is what this play is.

The rules committee hasn't given the consequences of this "interpretation" proper consideration.
Care to consider my point now?

Re: That horse rides again!
 

Nevadaref,
Would I be surprised if you would make such an interpretation on the floor (<I>as you apparently have made here</I>). Yes, I probably would be surprised.

You seem too intelligent and knowledgable. Yet you Zimp a subject to death. Please reconsider such an attitude. It bores.

Rules are based upon the creation of fair play. I think your interpretation is neither fair, nor correct.
Sans clarification, many of which are published every year, I will not call the play according to your interpretation. http://www.deephousepage.com/smilies/yawn.gif

mick

Can someone summarize what this all means????
 

Help out a confused coach please...

A establishes LGP inbounds. While defending B on a drive, A slides back and maintains LGP BUT foot touches the line.

Q1: B collides into A after A's foot touches the line - Block on A? Charge on B? Violation for B being OOB? Why????

Q2: B collides into A about the same time or before A's foot touches the line - Block on A? Charge on B? Why????

Re: Can someone summarize what this all means????
 

Quite honestly, we don't know. Until the rule books are shipped and the 2003 interpretations are posted on the NFHS website, anything written here is just speculation.

But I will say that this change in the rule probably won't have a lot of effect on the game, or possibly even the way this is called.

Re: Can someone summarize what this all means????
 

<B><Font color = Green>4-23 Clarified that in order for a player to establish legal guarding position, both feet must be touching the “playing court.” </font></B>

This rule merely removes the opportunity of a defender to legally take a charge on his torso by moving laterally and maintaining legal guarding position while being out-of-bounds.
If the offensive player sees and goes toward a seam between a defender and the line, the defender, stepping out-of bounds, though maintaining, is now blocking.
mick