Quote:
Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
1) Writing in the third person is the correct way to write on a subject. Talk to any high school English teacher.
2) The orginally posted play is such a simple play that I cannot believe that it has generated so many posts. The rules support a throw-in violation.
3) I repeat myself for the umpteenth time. This play has nothing to do with any of the three delay of game warnings listed in the NFHS Rules Book. This play is just careless play by A1, nothing complicated. Why would an official want to complicate it with an official delay of game warning when it is not? Why would an official even think of charging a technical foul for this violation and who would be charged with the technical foul? If you cannot explain the call do not make the call.
4) It is the opinion of this writer and many other more learned rules interpreters with whom I have talked, that only the NFHS can make official rules interpretations and that while an official can get a preliminary ruling from his state association, the NFHS is the final authority. We cannot have a different ruling for a play from each and every state association. I am registered by both the OhioHSAA and the MichiganHSAA. Can you imagine the chaos if Ohio said that the posted play was nothing more than a throw-in violaiton and Michigan said it is a reset, plus at delay of game warning, and then two border schools play each other (and they do, because I have such a game tomorrow).
|
Mark,I'm still waiting for you to answer my questions.Why does the the official Fed interpretation and your IAABO cohorts interpretation differ from your interpretation?They both say you can call a delay-of game warning!If NFHS is the final authority,why do you keep insisting that you can't call a delay of game warning?