Quote:
|
Originally Posted by rainmaker
I just don't see what's so hard about assuming that these guys got it right, even though we don't understand it.
|
Because understanding rules-based questions is the primary motivation for frequenting this forum. If by the rules, their ruling was correct, then it should have a direct explanation - obviously it's not clear and it's easy to conceive that if they had modified the time from 3.1 to 2.6 the majority concensus could easily be that their decision was correct.
I thought that, except for the audible whistle I'm convinced I hear, Jurrasic Referee had a good point somewhere a few pages back in which he points out the Trail may have been identifying who last touched the ball... who knows? were they using that mechanic "all game long" before killing the clock? I doubt it, but whatever. The point is that this is not a witch-hunt but a rule-hunt and the discussion is valid.