| Camron Rust |
Fri Jan 10, 2014 06:14pm |
Quote:
Originally Posted by BadNewsRef
(Post 917686)
It says "opponent contacts", meaning the opponent is performing the action. There is no intepretation or case play that say if the offensive players reaches through the plane and makes contact with the defender, that an intentional is to be called on the defensive player.
That how you've chosen to interpret the rule.
(And the rule is 9-2-10, 9-3-10)
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by MD Longhorn
(Post 917690)
Contact is both a transitive and intransitive verb. I contend that the rule intended to use the transitive form of the verb. Camron, I believe you're assuming the intransitive form.
|
No, that isn't really what i"m saying. I wouldn't call an IF in such a case. Just pointing out that the wording of the rule on both sides of this one is poor and could, in some circumstances, be interpreted either way. I think the interpretation that it is an IF for a defender to contact a thrower on the inbounds side of the line is horrible to start with.
Imagine this....A1 waiving around with the ball across the line, trying to find a person to throw it to. B1 waiving around trying to block A1's ability to make the throw (keeping on the inbounds side of the line). The two sets of arms meet. Who contacted/touched who? Do you have an OOB violation on the thrower or an IF on the defender? Both infractions have occured even when viewed with the transitive forms of both contact and touch. |
