Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee
How many freaking times times do I have to answer the same damn question? Was the timer SLOW stopping the clock? If you think so, then point out where I can read something that says that. I can't find anything anywhere that states that the timer DIDN'T stop the clock by rule.
Case book play 5.6.2SitG is almost the same play, and you goobers fail to admit that it even exists. Where can I read in that case play that time should be put back on the clock?
.
|
"almost" key but relevant word...the difference is the one item that makes it not apply.
"goobers"...your typical tactic when you can't back up your claims...call people names, belittle them, and hope that your antics distract everyone from the fact that you have no support for you claim.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee
I'm done. I'm tired of pointing the same damn thing out over and over. You and Camron can give me a call if or when either of you can find something...anything...that states that the timer actually had made a mistake on this play.
|
As predicted, you continue to ignore the most relevant points since you have no answer for them. I've even posted the NFHS's words that prove you wrong...that the timer gets NO reaction time (it was eliminated)...which means that a mistake, by deduction, is anything more than 0.
Yet, you claim its not not a mistake for an observed and definite .2 to run off but have nothing to back that up....nothing....the case you mention doesn't mention a time at all....its about when the horn sounds after the whistle and the officials DON'T see a time on the clock.
You're not POINTING out anything, you're making it up. That's the problem. You're repeating your own definition of mistake, not the NFHS's. You've done nothing but repeat that same thing and not answer the missing points...what is a mistake? Define it! I've provided you with the NFHS definition from thier comments, yet you chose to not even acknowledge it all.
Refusing to answer the most important hole in your interpretation doesn't make your interpretation right, it just exposes it more clearly that it's wrong....the fact that you ignore it when it has been asked several times shows you can't answer it.