Can we all agree to just disagree on the 2/3 point shot? The officials went to the monitor, saw what they thought was conclusive evidence that it was a 2, and awarded as such. But that's moot in the whole scheme of things here...the real question is why was the 5.1 put back on the clock? All of us have said on here that fair and equitable doesn't mean diddly squat if it doesn't follow a rule! So would someone please explain (because we haven't seen it yet), whether these three actually followed a proper rule or procedure in putting the 5.1 back up?
__________________
I know God would never give me more than I could handle, I just wish he wouldn't trust me so much.
|