Post move

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Well then get in the weight room or take the darn ball away.

Peace

Let's take a look at NFHS 4-19-1. I see a foul defined as "illegal contact....which hinders an opponent from performing normal defensive and offensive movements".

I don't see anything that says illegal contact requires flesh-on-flesh contact. Does forcefully using the ball to push an opponent away prevent that opponent from performing normal defensive movements? Yes.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by AremRed

Let's take a look at NFHS 4-19-1. I see a foul defined as "illegal contact....which hinders an opponent from performing normal defensive and offensive movements".

I don't see anything that says illegal contact requires flesh-on-flesh contact. Does forcefully using the ball to push an opponent away prevent that opponent from performing normal defensive movements? Yes.

That is great that you have read this rule, but you cannot read a rule and then say, "See...there it is."

There are other rules in the rulebook. And 10-6 clearly makes a reference to other specific body parts and never mentions the ball. So how can you have illegal contact when contact is not defined in the rulebook with anything but body parts?

You are right the rule does not say flesh to flesh, but you would think if they considered contact with a jersey, hair or the ball that would be defined.

Peace

Originally Posted by JRutledge

That is great that you have read this rule, but you cannot read a rule and then say, "See...there it is."

There are other rules in the rulebook. And 10-6 clearly makes a reference to other specific body parts and never mentions the ball. So how can you have illegal contact when contact is not defined in the rulebook with anything but body parts?

You are right the rule does not say flesh to flesh, but you would think if they considered contact with a jersey, hair or the ball that would be defined.

Peace

By using some common sense we can realize that while it is tough to foul someone with your hair or jersey, it is rather easy to imagine a situation where a player can foul another player using the ball.

10-6 does not specifically make reference to ball contact, but that does not preclude such a possibility.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by AremRed

By using some common sense we can realize that while it is tough to foul someone with your hair or jersey, it is rather easy to imagine a situation where a player can foul another player using the ball.

10-6 does not specifically make reference to ball contact, but that does not preclude such a possibility.

The rules are not always written for the sake of common sense. Now could there be other violation of rules if the ball is used to cause contact? Of course, that is what the unsporting rules are for.

And why is it hard for someone to contact someone with their hair in such a way that we would have to use the same logic to call a foul with the ball as we would with hair. That is why I said it was a stretch.

Peace

Originally Posted by JRutledge

And why is it hard for someone to contact someone with their hair in such a way that we would have to use the same logic to call a foul with the ball as we would with hair.

I don't understand this sentence at all, could you please clarify?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by AremRed

I don't understand this sentence at all, could you please clarify?

What is there to explain? If we are supposed to call fouls for the ball being used, why is it any different if a player has long enough hair or texture of hair that would allow for someone to be hit in the face or hit in someway that puts an opponent at a disadvantage? Maybe you have never seen players with hair down their back like you see in the NFL or in NCAA College Football. I could see a player with dreads down their back swining their head and hitting an opponent in the face even if the hair is tied down with ponytail.

Peace

[Adam]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

The rules are not always written for the sake of common sense. Now could there be other violation of rules if the ball is used to cause contact? Of course, that is what the unsporting rules are for.

And why is it hard for someone to contact someone with their hair in such a way that we would have to use the same logic to call a foul with the ball as we would with hair. That is why I said it was a stretch.

Peace

Hair touching OOB is enough for a violation. If contact with hair caused an advantage, call it.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

What is there to explain?

Well that sentence was poorly constructed and wasn't very clear. It started off sounding like a question and I couldn't tell where it went from there. I can't respond to your argument if I don't know what you were saying.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

If we are supposed to call fouls for the ball being used, why is it any different if a player has long enough hair or texture of hair that would allow for someone to be hit in the face or hit in someway that puts an opponent at a disadvantage?

Not all disadvantage is illegal. I consider the hair contact you describe to be incidental. Using the ball to push away an opponent however, is not incidental.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Adam

Hair touching OOB is enough for a violation. If contact with hair caused an advantage, call it.

OK, and one has little to do with the other.

Again, find me an interpretation instead of what we like to do on this site, use our own personal feelings to make a ruling.

I have yet to see such an interpretation and considering how often the ball could be used in such a way, I would think this topic is addressed. Hair for a violation like being out of bounds is mentioned and has been mentioned in previous casebooks and NF interpretations.

Peace

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by AremRed

Well that sentence was poorly constructed and wasn't very clear. It started off sounding like a question and I couldn't tell where it went from there. I can't respond to your argument if I don't know what you were saying.

Not all disadvantage is illegal. I consider the hair contact you describe to be incidental. Using the ball to push away an opponent however, is not incidental.

You are right, all disadvantage is not illegal. And for me to call a foul I need more than what you have stated here to call a foul. Again, I cannot go to my supervisors and say, "Some guy named AremRed said this was a foul, so I called it that way." And if it is a foul, it is not going to a foul like using your hand or arm.

Peace

Originally Posted by JRutledge

You are right, all disadvantage is not illegal.

I didn't say that, read it again.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I cannot go to my supervisors and say, "Some guy named AremRed said this was a foul, so I called it that way." And if it is a foul, it is not going to a foul like using your hand or arm.

Very fair point. However, I am not simply saying "this is a foul, trust me", I am saying "this action fits the definition of a foul as per 4-19-1 and I don't see anything in the language precluding ball contact".

I think we both know where each other stand, so let's end it here.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by AremRed

Very fair point. However, I am not simply saying "this is a foul, trust me", I am saying "this action fits the definition of a foul as per 4-19-1 and I don't see anything in the language precluding ball contact".

I think we both know where each other stand, so let's end it here.

We will just have to agree to disagree on this last point when the rules of contact never state anything but contact with a body part, not an extended item. And this is why different officials have different judgments. There would have to be more for me to call a foul.

Peace

[just another ref]

10-6-1: .............nor use ANY rough tactic.

A push with the ball could certainly be a rough tactic.

[JetMetFan]

For those who don't feel the OP is a PC: What positive is going to come from allowing players to use the ball to shove people out of the way? I know, I know, we don't adjudicate things within the game based on positive or negative impact but it would seem this would fall under 2-3/use common sense to deal with the situation.

Oh, regarding the hair discussion (one of two references to hair in the rule book):

NFHS 3-7: The referee shall not permit any team member to participate if in his/her judgment any item constitutes a safety concern, such as, but not limited to, a player's fingernails or hairstyle.

[BillyMac]