View Single Post
  #45 (permalink)  
Old Wed Oct 03, 2012, 12:16pm
JRutledge JRutledge is offline
Do not give a damn!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: On the border
Posts: 30,564
Quote:
Originally Posted by jritchie View Post
Just don't understand why the NFHS does this stuff! They should leave that statement " Teams may use successive time-outs to correct the situation if permitted by rule and if adequate time-outs remain." in the new versions of books, we have had thousands of new officials since 2003 and if they leave it out, they have never seen the rule, crazy!
I totally agree and why I hate the fact that we have to use an old interpretation to determine what should be listed in the current rulebook and casebook. But with that being said, I do not think this is really that complicated to determine what the rule says. There was no wording IMO that did not make that clear. Actually until this conversation, I did not even realize that anyone would be confused by the intent of the rule or the wording. This could all be cleared up by a casebook play like many other situations and nothing would need to be changed.

Peace
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble."
-----------------------------------------------------------
Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010)
Reply With Quote