Re: Defensive greatest attempt - turn or not

> We seem to be pretty obsessed with cheating the rules.

Obesessed with cheating the rules? No, but I like a good rule set.
Minimizing the role of intent helps to make a good rule set.
Perhaps we are obsessed with neigh-saying rules that are actually pretty
good.

> The defender
> establishing a pivot is not really a deterrent, assuming one wants to
> hide behind intent.  Actually as things are, all the defender has to
> say was it's an accident and he's covered by rule XIIB.  "...if a
> defensive player catches a pass and accidentally loses possession of
> it before or during ground contact related to that catch, the defender
> is considered to have blocked rather than intercepted the pass..."

Of course. Which is why I say the rules are trying to stop this from
happening very often. The role of intent is not eliminated, but reduced.
I'll quote myself
> > What the relevent rules are trying to do is stop this sort of thing from
> > happening very often. As they stand now, intent will not often have to
be
> > judged.


Back to quoting you:
> Even though he can't pass, he can still fall back on "it was an
> accident".  An accidental drop is not a turnover.  So, in order to
> determine if someone broke the rule or is cheating, you have to
> determine the intent of the defender.

By allowing no benefit to hiding behind intent, only the possibility of a
punishment, the role of intent in the rules is reduced. Dig?

Frank