Freedom of Movement 10-6-12

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Well what about the first touch in the back court with the T and then the ball handler goes into the C's primary and is touched again? Is the second touch a foul? No time limit right?

By the literal reading of the rule, yes.

Is that not in injustice if the C does not call the second touch that he did not even know there was a first touch?

Yes, that's why I said it's unenforceable.

You really think the rules makers had that as the intention? And if that is their position, why did they not just come out and give that as an example since it is so clear to everyone? I do not work Two man, so this situation is very likely in my world.


Peace

I find trying to read the minds of the rule committee to be an exercise in futility. I will readily agree with you that they often don't want the rules enforced the way they write them.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

By the literal reading of the rule, yes.



Yes, that's why I said it's unenforceable.



I find trying to read the minds of the rule committee to be an exercise in futility. I will readily agree with you that they often don't want the rules enforced the way they write them.

Most rules are not literal. Most rules are written and then there interpretations are there to suggest how we enforce or apply the rules. And it it is unenforceable, why would anyone suggest that this is the rule if someone claims you cannot enforce this consistently?

We cannot even have the NF agree on their interpretations about backcourt violation or what their language means. But the same people that complain about this issue, are the same people wanting to stick with an interpretation.

Peace