View Single Post
  #53 (permalink)  
Old Mon Feb 14, 2005, 12:57am
Maverick Maverick is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 57
Quote:
Originally posted by blindzebra


I said I would do what is fair even though it is not supported by rule.

The other side is incorrectly saying that IT CAN BE FIXED by rule 5-10. There is no rule support to fix this situation.
I have been claiming the total opposite. I have been saying that 5-10 has nothing to do with this situation because it wasn't a [B]TIMER'S[\B] (who is a person) mistake, it was a [B]TIMING[\B] (a procedural) mistake. You're the one who keeps claiming it falls under 5-10 by continually citing a case book play that references that rule. I've said from the start that it falls under 2-5-5 where the referee can correct an obvious timing error. Now, MTD, Sr. has a point in saying that the timer should have known not to start the clock until the rules state it should be started which is correct but I'd rather have the timer reacting to my signals than trying to decice if I'm right or not (not trying to start another arguement, MTD, so don't take it as such). I agree with MTD et. al. that the clock wasn't started properly and thus the referee can correct the timing error.
Reply With Quote