Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
Play (A): This is both a TF charged to A2 for delay of game and a delay of game warning to Team A. I know that I could get out of Dodge if my partners and I do not say a word and just let the clock run out. But A2's act in this case is to blatant not to ignore.
Play (B): The Casebook Play is correct. That veteran official needs to do more studying of the rules and casebook plays. If he would issue the delay of game warning he would have to stop the clock and that is just what Team A wants. He would thereby rewarding Team A for their breaking of the rules, because Team B's throw-in for Team A's violation would be with the clock stopped, and the casebook play keeps Team A from gaining an advantage they are not entitled to under the rules.
|
Why is the case book play correct for play (B) but not for play (A)?
In play (A), A2 interfered with the ball as soon as it went through the net. The
COMMENT explicitly says
"In situations with the clock running and five or less seconds left in the game, a throw-in plane violation or INTERFERING WITH THE BALL FOLLOWING A GOAL SHOULD BE IGNORED IF IT"S ONLY PURPOSE IS TO STOP THE CLOCK". What part of that didn't you understand?
This veteran official(you) needs to do more studying of the rules and casebook plays imo. If you issue the technical foul, you stop the clock. If team B throws away the subsequent throw-in after the FT's, you've given team A a chance to tie or win, depending on how many of the FT's for the "T" that B made. Iow, you've put team A in a position of possibly gaining an advantage that they're not entitled to under the specific instructions of the case book play.
That doesn't make any sense at all to me, Mark. You're deliberately ignoring the very specific instructions of the case book play.