Disagree...A Little...
I think you could have been equally justified in putting the 0.6 seconds back on the clock and letting them play that out...I know by rule your decision was correct, but it seems you had definite knowledge of remaining time, and perhaps it would have been better to let the game continue. It seems rule interpretation here is flexible (lag time vs. definite knowledge). In the Sacramento game that was referenced, I think the referees had to accept the play despite the slow clock because there is no other way to rectify it (i.e., no definitive knowledge of whether shot was off, and if it wasn't how could you tell?) For NFHS, I believe Rule 2-13 addresses this, that the goal shall count if its unclear whether the shot was off in time or there is a dispute (unless definitive knowledge). But with regards to the lag time, I think it is a delicate balance.
Bottom line for me --> I guess when BOTH situations are justified, what makes for the best possible outcome of a game: rule application or playing action. For me, it's playing action.
PS-Before I get flamed --> The key word is "BOTH." I am not saying, and never will, to set aside a rule to let players decide the outcome. Only when there is two possibilities with equal merit do I say let 'em play...
Ok, ready to be flamed!
Joe
[Edited by JosephG678 on Mar 10th, 2005 at 12:06 PM]
|