Another axiom for Mike Sears

[PSU213]

Sorry, this is turning into a pet peeve of mine, so I have to bring it up (okay, so it probably does not qualify as an axiom).

Situation: A 1/10 at their own 20. A1 runs the ball to the A-25. During the run A2 holds B1 at the: (a) A-21 or (b) A-29.

"Axiom:" In (a) apply the all-but-one principle, but don't apply it in (b).

[Deep]

Originally posted by PSU213
Situation: A 1/10 at their own 20. A1 runs the ball to the A-25. During the run A2 holds B1 at the: (a) A-21 or (b) A-29.

"Axiom:" In (a) apply the all-but-one principle, but don't apply it in (b).

I'm sorry, but I don't understand your point. Why wouldn't you apply the all-but-one principle in both cases? Or maybe you are saying that there are officials that don't?

[Snake~eyes]

That's what he is saying.

[PSU213]

Originally posted by Deep

I'm sorry, but I don't understand your point. Why wouldn't you apply the all-but-one principle in both cases? Or maybe you are saying that there are officials that don't?

Many people say you don't apply it in situations like (b), but you apply it for almost all live-ball fouls.

[lazebra]

I am not sure who has excluded a live ball foul by A from all-but-one. All accepted penalties for live ball fouls by A are either enforced under "all" (from the basic spot) or "but-one" (spot of the foul).

[PSU213]

Originally posted by lazebra
I am not sure who has excluded a live ball foul by A from all-but-one. All accepted penalties for live ball fouls by A are either enforced under "all" (from the basic spot) or "but-one" (spot of the foul).

I see it all the time on here.