You have really got to figure out how to quote people properly if you're going to have a discussion like this. Just for the sake of reading ease. I'm only going to address a couple of points.
Oh, as for Scrappy, he was throwing out a hypothetical for the sake of argument. The first words of his post should have told you that.
Let's start here, with your answer to my statement that the rule is designed to prevent one team from gaining an unfair advantage:
Quote:
Originally Posted by RandyBrown
That's a bold and confident statement of intent! Is that you talking, or is there a Commissioner there with you?
|
I'll let you search for the wording in the book, but it's there. It's actually what all the rules are designed for.
I have to admit, I'm not sure what this has to do with anything; could you elaborate?
Quote:
Originally Posted by RandyBrown
No infraction involved in the interruption to worry about this time, so we may be able to carpool on this one.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by RandyBrown
Sounds like AP, to me. 7-5 doesn't cover it, as far as I can determine. The CB offers what I mentioned in Sitch 1, which together, seem to put such whistles into their own category--we're advised to treat them as though they didn't happen, to the extent possible. If that's not enough, there was no team control, and an official's TO is not an infraction, and there is no goal or end-of-period involved at the time of the interruption--seems to meet the definition of POI at 2c, which provides for an APTI. The arrow didn't change, since the original APTI never "ended" the way the book defines a TI as ending. Right, again? Wrong reasons, though, huh--because my reasons don't get you where you were hoping to lead me.
|
As for sitch 1, how can you go to a "non-designated endline throw-in" in spite of your earlier interpretation that POI cannot lead you there? You have an IW (accidental whistle), which the rule tells us we are to follow by resuming with POI. What's your rule reference to make the differentiation here?
First,
this completely ignores the fact that the interrupting event occurred during a throw-in.
You've got an IW during a throw-in, which for purposes of the rule is treated the same exact way as a DF; unless you can point me to something that says the two are treated differently. Let's start there.