Quote:
|
Originally Posted by jkjenning
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.
|
I expect the rule that you're looking for is some sort of official interpretation of how to handle these sorts of situations that isn't necessarily obvious to us from our reading of the book. I mean look at NFHS case 10.1.8. Would you automatically have figured that was how to handle that rule?
I'm saying even though we can't find anything that says, "When the clock doesn't start you just time the play until the ball goes out of bounds regardless of the whistle" that doen'st mean they aren't going by the rules. It just means that we aren't as up on the NCAA rules and interps and fiats and dicta as they are.
Why do they owe us an official explanation? They're not even issuing explanations when it would protect their reputation such as in last night's travel/no travel problem. They have in effect issued an explanation by ruling as they did. Talking with their feet, so to speak.