Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee
1) Yup, the the rules do say dat.
2)OK
3) That's nice.....but play was never stopped during the throw-in. It was stopped for a 5-second violation by the administering official.
4) Nope, I'm telling you that the trail never stopped play. Says so right in the first post of this thread. The only "stopped play" in this situation came when the lead stopped play for the 5-second violation by blowing his whistle. The timer quite properly and by rule never started the clock.
5) Agree completely. That's exactly what the lead did.
6) Agree. Too bad the trail never blew his whistle or your statement might even be a little wee bit relevant. There was no "continued time-out" by the trail because there never was a time-out during the throw-in. And as for continued time-out, that's what happened the lead blew his whistle for the 5-second violation. No whistle was blown during the throw-in that would have made the ball dead on that throw-in.
7) The timer kept the clock stopped, as per rule, when the lead signalled a throw-in violation by blowing his whistle and giving a continued stop clock signal. There was no "continued time-out" signal before that.
8) Please cite some rules, any rules, that would back up this statement.  |
3 & 4) Play had previously been stopped. For what, we don't know. But we have a throw-in and an official bringing in subs. Clearly play was previously stopped. And, as the original post makes clear, the T was clearly signaling that play was to remain stopped, even as the L unwittingly tried to put the ball in play.
5) Yes, this is true. Of course, his partner was already doing the same thing, and had been since before the L gave the thrower the ball. The T, had in fact, been signaling that play was not to continue.
6) The T was signalling continued time-out during the throw-in. Per the OP, "The Trail came to me and told me that I made a mistake because he had his hand up indicating subs were coming into the game so I should not have administered the throw-in." Perhaps you're arguing that the T having his hand up is NOT signaling continued time-out? If so, then please explain how an official properly signals continued time-out.
7) Agreed the timer should normally have kept the clock stopped during a throw-in. In this situation, however, there are more reasons that just the erroneous throw-in violation, since the T having his hand up
is signaling continued time-out.
Let's turn this sitch around a bit. What if the throw-in had been successful and you've got a substitution partially completed. Some of the subs have come on the floor, some have not. Some of the players have left, some have not. The ball has been thrown in, and....what, we just let it go and hope the rest of the subs hurry and finish going on and off? Or maybe we T them up if they do finish the substitution after the ball is live? You realize, of course, that the clock can't be running so long as the T continues to signal continued time-out. So...we play on without the clock? No. Of course you'd stop the play. You have no real choice. It's obvious. But why is it different if the throw-in is success and/or you have subs? Your basic premise of if-the-T-didn't-whistle-then-the-play-must-stand is inconsistent.
8) I have clearly cited all the necessary rules, and logically laid out the basis for this statement. It is plain. The fact that an official can continue to signal continued time-out is clearly codified. And we all do it regularly when we keep our hand raised. The fact that the clock cannot be started, even "as per rule," clearly indicates that this continued time-out signal trumps whatever play that official's partner(s) erroneously allows to happen. What other possible, logical conclusion can be drawn?
Now it's your turn. You have unequivocably stated that the T's hand in the air, without subs, is meaningless, despite clearly contradicting 5-9-1. Please provide a citation.
You then agreed with Tony that subs coming and going would make a difference. How can this be? Either the ball is allowed to be live while the T is signaling, or it isn't. What possible difference could subs make? Please provide a citation.
You have said that if the T had blown his whistle before the 5 seconds was up, that would have made a difference. Why? If, as you assert, the ball is properly live. What is your basis for killing this live ball? Surely that basis is sufficient to continue the time-out. Please provide a citation.
You have said that since the T didn't blow his whistle, and the violation occurred, this is a regrettable, but non-correctable error. Please provide a citation.
Finally, you seem clearly to base your reasoning around the ball absolutely becoming live because the L put it at the disposal of the thrower, this despite 6-1-2-Note and my generalization, which you agreed with, that there are times when some other rule takes precidence over 6-1-2. Please explain how the ball becoming live trumps 5-9-1 and the conclusions I have drawn from it. Please provide a citation.