You would think that with all the time they have to prepare for each issue, they at least would get their rule interpretations right. Not so. In the new January issue on page N14 of the insert that only goes to NASO members, Hank Nichols blows it.
The question asked about a case in which A1 inbounds by rolling the ball (this part was put in to establish there was no team control for the next part). While the ball is rolling, coach B requests and is incorrectly granted a timeout. Nichols correctly states that under NF rules, the timeout goes on as if it was legal, but also states that team A gets the ball back to inbound. The original inbound was not designated as an AP inbound. He cites case 5.8.3E to substantiate his interpretation. That case does support the timeout being utilized as if it was legal, but says nothing about giving the ball back to team A for the inbound instead of going to the AP arrow.
NF rule 6.3.3.e says AP shall be used in all situations where "The ball becomes dead when neither team is in control and no goal or infraction or end of a quarter or extra period is involved."
In this case, there was no team control, the ball became dead on the referee's whistle and none of the other situations occurred.
I was always taught that anytime there was an inadvertant whistle (which I would classify as what happened here) and there is no team control, you go to the AP arrow.
Also, on another case, the magazine (no personal interpretation listed) combines two of the four elements needed for an over and back into "team control in the frontcourt." I guess they mean that as being in team control when the ball attains frontcourt status, but I think it is better expressed as two separate elements - 1) team control and 2) the ball has achieved frontcourt status.
Comments?
__________________
Yom HaShoah
|