Quote:
Originally Posted by RookieDude
I don't know...
it seems when a player is just holding the ball against a "tight zone" the game is STILL MOVING, the clock is running.
When players violate, as in the OP, the game is NOT MOVING, the clock is stopped.
Does that explanation make you feel better M&M?...  |
Quote:
Originally Posted by BadNewsRef
Difference being that in your example the clock continues to run and the quarter will eventually end.
|
Actually, 10-1-5(c) can happen while the clock is running, so a T for an "actionless contest" in 10-1-5 can happen with both the clock running and clock stopped.
Maybe I was misunderstood - I'm not advocating calling a T in the stall example, I'm just trying to make sure we have a specific rule basis for expanding the definition of "actionless contest". If we can say multiple violations make a game become actionless, then we have to be prepared to justify where the line is drawn in that definition. My point is we have specific examples already listed in (a) thru (f), and we cannot expand that definition without additional information.
My preferences, in order, still are:
1 - Keep calling the violation(s) until some other outcome happens
2 - After a certain amount of time, ignore the violation by the defense (less prefereable, but kind of supported by precedent)