Quote:
Originally Posted by tjones1
COMMENT: 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 its only purpose is to stop the clock. However, if the tactic in any way interferes with the thrower's efforts to make a throw-in, a technical foul for delay shall be called even though no previous warning has been issued. In this situation, if the official stopped the clock and issued a team warning, it would allow the team to benefit from the tactic.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nevadaref
OMG! Make up your own rules much?  |
Seriously? All right, here's my thought process on it. You can take it or leave it. The reasoning given in the comment (quote again above) applies just as much when there are 7 seconds left as when there are 5.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nevadaref
How about if there are 30 seconds left or 59? What difference does it make? It's not UNDER FIVE, which is what the ruling specifies.
How can you feel that such action is justified with seven seconds left, but "not as convinced of the rules backing" when there are nine seconds? This is black and white. The NFHS gave you a specific number to use. You need to adhere to that.
|
To answer a seemingly pedantic question, the difference is the benefit gained. With 7 seconds left, the offense can run out the clock without the ball even being touched just as easily as with 5. The benefit of this tactic is tangible, unintended, and undesired by the rules committee. At 9 seconds, it's admittedly fuzzier. Are you suggesting that stopping the clock is a legitimate and approved reason for a team to commit this violation, in spite of the comment for this particular case play? Or is it only illegitimate with under 5 seconds remaining?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nevadaref
Just wait until JR comes along to tell you, "rulez rule."
|
Maybe I'll listen, maybe I won't. I will, however, check local listings.
