Quote:
Originally posted by walter
Quote:
Originally posted by mick
If this was an antagonistic act by Team B, then I would have not problem doing what they did, but I would want to be sure the "warning buzzer notification" was given to the huddle as a minimum. I initially give Team B a lot of leeway, at first, before administering the free throw, or before I put the ball on the floor for a throw-in. One of us would go back and remind Team B that were are ready to go. The Trail is right there. Say something. Don't look for boogers. I would want to know that the delay was an overt display, and not just an innocent act.
|
At the first horn, our association is stressing that we inform the benches that the first horn has sounded. They want us to put the ball in play at the second horn. Now if the teams are breaking huddles and coming back on the floor when the second horn blows, obviously we will delay putting the ball in play. However, if there is no attempt to resume play (i.e. team still in huddle or on the bench), our association wants the ball in play. Generally I agree with Mick's statement. However, our asscoaition does not and that's who assigns the games.
[/B]
|
walter,
If my association wanted it that way, then no problem.
If, however, we go to page 9. "Therefore, it is important to know the intent and purpose of a rule so that it may be intelligently applied in each play situation.", I think we realize the rule is there for reasons other than, "Let's get this over."
An association that is being firm about that rule should make it clear to the schools, and it's membership, how the rule will be enforced.
In your case, it would seem that Team B was trying to aggravate the officials, or that Team B did know they were causing a problem. If Team B did it purposely, it would be a rare act.
mick