Post move

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by AremRed

There was contact, from the ball. I totally agree though. No contact with the ball, no foul.

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

Peace

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.

[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