Quote:
|
Originally Posted by rainmaker
It seems to me that instead of people in our positions questioning whether they did things correctly or not, we might take a different perspective and think, "Hm. These are the best refs in the NCAA in interpreting and administering the rules as the directors and managers want them handled. What can I learn from this? There must be an interp somewhere that allows them to disregard the whistle in fixing the clock. After all, they had time to discuss the situation, and help in remembering the various rules and interps that they've heard. They had at least as good a view of the play as we had, perhaps a better view at crucial points. I'm going to put this whole situation into the file cabinet, and pull it out again next time I need to, to see if I can learn something from it."
Just because WE don't understand or agree, doesn't mean that THEY are wrong.
|
It seems to me that based on that logic, there's no need for about 50% of this message board. Or at the very least, everyone should be obligated to order a copy of the most recent release of interps from the given league in question before positing any opinions.
I don't think taking the rules as published at face value, and offering an opinion that corresponds with them, is irresponsible, nor implying that the refs in question aren't "good".
One official blew/signaled the play dead well before it hit an out-of-bounds object. So no matter how you look at it, an official, at some juncture, didn't get the call exactly right here. Fine. They are not robots.
On the other hand...they are not robots. Even when they may take 6 minutes to make a decision.
Can't really have it both ways.