Quote:
Originally posted by Camron Rust
Should have either ignored the infraction or called a T. No warning is necessary. Rule 10-3-7.
The best choice would be to ignore the infraction since it would seal the win for the offended team. If the T is called, the offended team could still get the ball back and score.
|
Acutally, as JR so correctly quoted the Case (9.2.11 Comment) for this sitch, there is no "choice" really...the official is instructed to
ignore the "last second tactic".
rainmaker said they were "cheaters" and Camron used 10-3-7 to call it an unsporting act...I just think it was "stupid". The coach was trying to use what he thought was a legal tactic, per the rules, to give his team a chance to win, and as usual...the coach didn't know the rules. JR's Case Play shows that the delay is neither cheating or unsporting...it is just a tactic that is
ignored.
Now, since the official also didn't know the rule, or just got flustered and stopped the clock...we have a situation where you can't just run off 5 seconds, and if you give the ball to the team behind, you have allowed the team to benefit from it's tactic.
Therefore, IMO, the T is issued at this point...Hmmmm, maybe that is why rainmaker was using 2-3 and Camron 10-3-7....to justify the T after the officials mistake.
JR...why does Case 9.2.11 mention B1 reaching "through the boundary plane" and knocking the ball out of A1's hands...and then states that Team B "has not been warned previously for a throw-in plane violation."?
This isn't a warning situation...it's an automatic T Rule 10-3-11 PENALTY...so why mention the warning that has not been given?