Remove this Banner Ad

Robbed.

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Quote:
Originally Posted by section8
You're struggling with the integration of the concepts of interpretation and precedent regarding the rule into your argument. I suggest that you research the principles of common law and statutory law which are used in tandem in most western legal systems to get a better appreciation of what you need to do to rebut properly.

Since you are unlikely to do that, it is pointless for this discussion to continue.



And yet it does.
Click to expand...


I'm answering JohnK's posts now
 
OK, thanks. I understand that.
Is "enter and remain" opposite to or the same as "pass through"?
Click to expand...

With regard to the call made, I'd say "pass through" would be interpreted as entering the protected area and taking the shortest route to exit the area on the opposite side within a "reasonable" amount of time, which may require the player to veer off the path they entered on.
 
section8 said:
With regard to the call made, I'd say "pass through" would be interpreted as entering the protected area and taking the shortest route to exit the area on the opposite side within a "reasonable" amount of time, which may require the player to veer off the path they entered on.
Click to expand...

That doesn't answer my question.

If you dropped the legalese and spoke in Football English, Section8, you would win this argument hands down.
 
With regard to the call made, I'd say "pass through" would be interpreted as entering the protected area and taking the shortest route to exit the area on the opposite side within a "reasonable" amount of time, which may require the player to veer off the path they entered on.
Click to expand...

Considering that passing through is acceptable, and entering and remaining is unacceptable, the two terms in this particular context are opposites.
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

this is ridicolous.. there is no need to keep going on about something that is a week old, and wont change a thing at all. It was a mistake, section8 just suck that in and forget about it.
 
Stenglein ran into Barry. All the football world knows it. Swans fans have dealt with it and are getting on with the big semi tonight against the Catters.

Its other clubs who are still complaining about the subject.
 
hero? hardly so... im just saying it as it is, and as the other peope see it. This is pathetic what you got going on. Everyone knows its a mistake, the AFL officials have said it themselves (although i dont want to give them too much credit). The replays show it, and yet you cant bring yourself to agree with it.
 
BarcaRulz said:
this is ridicolous.. there is no need to keep going on about something that is a week old, and wont change a thing at all. It was a mistake, section8 just suck that in and forget about it.
Click to expand...

BarcaRulz, we will tall about this until December if we feel like it.
No-one is making you enter and remain here. Just pass on through, there's a good chap.
 
Please pause, right there.

Did you mean to say that, Section8?
Click to expand...

Yep, in the sense that one is an infringement and one isn't they are opposites. In situations where a team mate is running through the mark to get from one side of the mark to the other, which is acceptable given they meet the criteria I mentioned earlier, the term "passing through" is as good as any to classify it.

It's easy to get bogged down in the semantics of interpreting rules, but sometimes it is necessary to ensure that the rule is able to be applied for the purpose it was devised for. In this instance, to stop potential shepherding off the ball of the opposition player standing the mark who is restricted in their movement. I have similar issues with taggers who play the man and not the ball. I'll watch gridiron if I want to see that sort of crap.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

Robbed.

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top