Quote:
Originally posted by Texas Aggie
Nevada: in Play 1, there's no POI designation.
|
I never said that there was. I quoted the interp because we have also been talking about the NFHS going by a rationale that a team should not lose an advantage when the opponent does something wrong. I believe that it is utter nonsense that a team keeps the right to run when they are offended by a common foul, but loses it when they suffer the greater offense of an intentional or a flagrant foul. Who cares that 2FTs intervene? This was really a poor rule change.
Quote:
Originally posted by Texas Aggie
In Play 2, the POI designation isn't applicable based on what happened.
|
I quoted this interp not because of what does happen in the play itself, but because of the comment to the ruling for part (c).
There is no question that POI applies when there is a double foul while a try for goal is in the air. The comment that I even put in bold directly says that for you.
Here's that quote again, "Had the try been successful, the
point of interruption would have been a throw-in for Team B from anywhere along the end line."
So in this play we have POI being used for a noncommon foul and on the ensuing throw-in the team retains the running privilege. That exactly counters 7-5-7, which states that the team only retains this right following common fouls.
So my point in citing these two interps is that there is evidence both ways. The NFHS needs to fix this and make a definitive ruling.