Running the end line

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I agree that saying "Don't move" might not, and probably, will not, lead to any problems, but why say something that isn't true (it's positively, absolutely, not true), and perpetuates a myth?

Not everything we say is literal. If that is the case, you should have a problem with anyone saying "running the end line" when no such language is used in the rulebook but very often used to describe the ability to "move" on the end line. I even had a problem years ago with a coach because he felt that it was my obligation to give his player the ball wherever he choose, not where I choose, which resulted in a T on the coach. But that is another story for another day. Never had a problem with saying "Don't move" when I rarely even say that in the first place.

And again, not sure what myth it perpetuates, because people think you travel on a throw-in. It is not assumed it is a travel because a player with the ball moves. It is thought to be a travel because they take steps with their feet. So I am not so sure what myth is perpetuated? They only want to know that they can or cannot run the end line. They do not understand the nuances of the rule to begin with.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

... not sure what myth it perpetuates.

... That the inbounder can't move. Because he can, in a lot of different ways, and directions. Up (jump). Down (gravity after jumping). Left (to a degree). Right (to a degree). Forward (very limited). Backward (limited to time, and setting). Move both feet in place (the travel that isn't a travel). Etc. So why say that he can't move?

Why say something that is 100% wrong, dead wrong, when several other alternatives (see above posts, lots of posts, lots of alternatives) can be easily stated that are all 100% correct.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

... That the inbounder can't move. Because he can, in a lot of different ways, and directions. Up (jump). Down (gravity after jumping). Left (to a degree). Right (to a degree). Forward (very limited). Backward (limited to time, and setting). Move both feet in place (the travel that isn't a travel). Etc. So why say that he can't move?

Why say something that is 100% wrong, dead wrong, when several other alternatives (see above posts, lot of posts, lots of alternatives) can be easily stated that are 100% correct.

Because that is Rut and you can't him otherwise.