Quote:
Originally posted by cmathews
Quote:
Originally posted by thumpferee
Quote:
Originally posted by JRutledge
Because if I am that picky about that rule, guess what other rules they are going to want me and my partners to call to the letter? 
Peace
|
That is exactly my point!
Do we not need to call the game to the letter? We need to be on the same page as officials as to what the call should be! And the call is clearly stated in the rules book as Bob stated.
As far as making up rules, I was refering to the comment about clearing the lane and allowing the player who is INELIGIBLE to shoot FT's. Make them remove the earings, maybe, but then you talk about wasting time! Is that not taking time from the game?
Coaches and players were already fore-warned to remove all jewelry.
Is a T warranted to the coach because his/her players were not properly equipped? Or improperly equipped?
|
No we don't want to call the game to the letter of the rules...we need to call it to the intent of the rules and take into account advantage/disadvantage.... I don't agree that it is clearly stated in the rules as there are some of us who disagree and have quoted the case book ruling that supports our position.. [/B]
|
NCAA A.R.18 Player is found to be wearing jewelry. RULING. the game shall be stopped immediately or be required to leave the game etc...
Again, talking about delaying the game! What is easier? Delaying the game to benefit the offender, or the purpose of the rule?
Someone mentioned advantage or disadvantage. Who is gaining an advantage here? Obviously the offender has the advantage if you allow time to remove jewelry which should have not been present in the first place.
JMO