Quote:
|
Originally Posted by JugglingReferee
Nevadaref has previously explained, with proof, that the National Fedeation finally stated explicitly to not allow for "do-overs". They seemed rather adamant about this case, so one might be smart to listen to this; even if it seems that this is the right thing to do. However, I'm not certain that this situation falls inside the Fed's thinking in this case.
|
It's a timing error. This is clearly a situation to which the statement is intended to apply.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee
1) Nevadaref has no definitive proof to back up his previous opinion. The FED language issued re: do-overs was not meant to cover a play like this. This play is a do-over.
|
Nope, not my opinion, it's a clear statement by the NFHS. It's right there in black and white in the new officials manual.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by JugglingReferee
I searched for NV's post re: do-overs and the search function wasn't helpful for me.  Oh well. |
Allow me to help you locate it.
there are no provisions in the rules for "do-overs"