Quote:
Originally Posted by bainsey
It appears we have different ways of thinking that will lead to the same result.
If I'm reading Mr. West's words correctly, he's emphasizing the word POINT in "point of interruption." In other words, at what point was the game interrupted? Was there team control?
That would be fine, but as others pointed out, 4-36-1 clearly states that POI is a method of resuming play, not just a point in the game. In other words, POI is the effect, not just the cause.
(Aside: I'm an I.T. guy, too. I enjoy these analyses, but when there's a dispute, I find that the written definition supersedes all.)
|
But so is AP. The AP is a method of putting the ball in play under a certain set of circumstance one of which the POI is no team control. The POI is not the Arrow in my opinion. It is the method of putting the ball in play when the POI is no team control and we have no other way of putting the ball in play like a throw-in or free throw.
Guys part of being an engineer is seeing things in terms of black and white and not so much gray. It is an occupational hazard of mine to be very analytical. I can't help it. We all get to the same result. I just look at it differently. It makes more sense to me to think of it in terms of POI in the case being no team control. And since we were not in the process of administering a throw-in or free throw we go with the arrow.
And if you haven't figured out by now, I love a good debate. I enjoy my time on this board!