|
|||
Quote:
I don't know what "either option is a penalty" means. The PENALTY is "kick out of bounds". All 3 (or 2) options are enforcement options. Two of those 3 are not distance penalties. This is truly simple.
__________________
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, 'I drank what?'” West Houston Mike |
|
|||
Quote:
__________________
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, 'I drank what?'” West Houston Mike |
|
|||
Quote:
Meanwhile I found an obscure little provision that applies to the original question: NCAA 10-2-5(f): "Distance penalties for fouls by either team may not extend a team’s free kick restraining line behind its five-yard line. Penalties that would otherwise place the free kick restraining line behind a team’s five-yard line are enforced from the next succeeding spot." Funny word there, "extend"; maybe should be "result in" or "place" or "put" or the like. "Extend" there doesn't conform with other use of "extended" in their rules in the context of lines, planes, and zones. Actually the entire 1st sentence is made nearly (or arguably entirely) superfluous by the 2nd. |
|
|||
Quote:
If the answer to my question is yes, the I submit that declining the foul for a KO OOB gives the receiving team it's worst option: which is where the ball went OB if behind the KO line + 25y.
__________________
Pope Francis |
|
|||
Quote:
Peace
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble." ----------------------------------------------------------- Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010) |
|
|||
I see that as a bug, not a feature.
|
|
|||
Well you do not officiate, so I would not expect you to see it my way. Put yourself in our shoes and you will realize that most of what we do is apply rules in a practical way.
Peace
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble." ----------------------------------------------------------- Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010) |
|
|||
Well, Bobby --- if the rulebook was filled up with the caseplays, examples, and commentary we get from other guides, it would be exceedingly long. The rulebook states the rules as concisely as possible while trying to be clear. Given that they are not perfect, and many words have multiple meanings, the casebooks are extremely helpful in showing us the intent of the rules. The casebooks are not a liability - they help us rule as consistently as possible. Without them, insane internet wordsmiths (I can think of three) would continually pick apart the rulebook looking for obscure situations and using odd interpretations of different words' definitions.
Unfortunately, even though the casebook exists and tells us in just about any case how to rule - those insane internet wordsmiths still exist, resulting in threads like this one (and more than half of the active threads going right now).
__________________
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, 'I drank what?'” West Houston Mike |
|
|||
A tool sadly not appropriate for moderators...
__________________
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, 'I drank what?'” West Houston Mike |
|
|||
I don't know about exceedingly; NCAA put their interpretations in the book many years ago (appended at the end) and so did NFL (interpolated).
|
|
|||
Wait are we (well really not we) now trying to argue the value of a case book? Really?!
__________________
Chaos isn't a pit. Chaos is a ladder. Many who try to climb it fail and never get to try again. The fall breaks them. And some, given a chance to climb, they refuse. They cling to the realm, or the gods, or love. Illusions. Only the ladder is real. The climb is all there is. |
|
|||
Quote:
There's nothing wrong with mnemonics, restatements of rules, or examples being given when working thru the rules requires multiple steps that can cause one to stumble; you see that sort of thng in any math textbook, for instance. What's wrong is when different readers (or even a single reader with a mind to it) can start with a single rule book and follow every possible step thru it and wind up with different answers. If a case book in that case is acknowledged to be correct, the next edition of the rule book should be rewritten to conform to that fact. If anybody who's concerned with the game comes up with a different answer from anybody else, and the only way to say who's correct (because they both give their reasons) is whatever has come thru the grapevine as "the way it's done", then the rules have failed in that particular. |
|
|||
Quote:
Peace
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble." ----------------------------------------------------------- Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010) |
Bookmarks |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Rules questions... | scooter2 | Basketball | 10 | Sun Jan 10, 2010 07:17pm |
rules questions | lakers8 | Basketball | 6 | Thu Dec 18, 2008 04:42pm |
Two rules questions | TomSegi | Basketball | 3 | Mon Feb 11, 2008 11:57pm |
2 rules questions | roadking | Basketball | 3 | Mon Oct 10, 2005 12:56pm |
2 Rules Questions | ace | Basketball | 4 | Mon Nov 24, 2003 10:25am |