Quote:
Originally posted by Self
Now I guess I am more confused..haha. Actually as BktBllRef stated (Not that I doubted you just wanted to discuss what I have heard elsewhere), Mr. Knox rules this a delay of game warning per rule 5-46-3, for interfering with the ball following a goal. As in 10-1-5b, Delaying the game by preventing the ball from being made promptly live or from being put in play. He states no where in the rule does it say this applies to only the new defense. It applies to either team. Also his reasoning for it not being a throw-in violation is the throw-in has not begun until the player steps out of bounds.
So now I see both ways.. Violation or Delay of Game warning. I can justify either one by using the rules previously listed. I guess it depends on what kind of mood I am in...haha... I truly believe there is no clear cut answer and I brought this up to him. He agreed and could see teh other sides reasoning as well. He appreciated this and made note to discuss at future meeting. Maybe adding this play to case so there is a definitive ruling one way or the other. Well we shall see....
|
NO, NO, NO, ABSOLUTELY NOT! I am leaving to officiate a game, so I will email Dick Knox this weekend, BUT Dick Knox is ABSOLUTELY WRONG about applying NFHS R4-S46-A3, to this play. That rule a prohibition against the team that just scored. If Team A has just scored, it is impossible for Team B to be guilty of violation R4-S46-A3 because Team B is entitled to make the throw-in. R4-S46-A3 is to keep Team A from allowing Team B from securing the ball for a throw-in in a timely manner.
Furthermore, I think that Referee Magazine was really stretching to imply that NFHS R10-S1-A5b for delay of game by preventing the ball from becoming promptly alive. I cannot fathom an instance when an official would apply this rule to the posted play. To use R10-S1-A5b is like using a nuclear warhead to kill a fly.