Mon Jul 15, 2013, 06:12pm
|
Official Forum Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,593
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge
eace
|
There is no situation that even suggests in any interpretation what you are saying. You are taking it further than even the rules or interpretation allows.
Forgive me, I thought this was a hypothetical question leading to a discussion, I never got a copy of the memo appointing you Grand Pupa in charge of deciding, "how far the rules, or interpretations, are allowed to go. If you have reasoning beyond, "Because you said so", please share it, I'd like to consider it.
A Referee would rarely if ever be judging any first touching or any of these kinds of plays. So not sure where the Referee is going to be making any decision as it relates to this rule.
I never intended to suggest the Referee would be asked about his version of what actually happened, likely being far removed from the downfield action, but some Referees expect to be kept abreast of exceptional calls in the event there might be questions, and might even provide useful advice.
The Referee cannot also overrule anyone's judgment.
Strange, I don't recall reading anywhere that the Referee was prevented from reviewing judgment calls. Although it's certainly not an every day matter, I thought the second sentence of 1-1-6, "The Referee's decisions are final in ALL MATTERS pertaining to the game", actually meant "ALL MATTERS", and a quality Referee might be able to add some valuable input to the discussion that would persuade the covering official to rethink the original call.
not some situation in which you are trying to define something that is already defined.
I thought the fact that this particular scenario is NOT defined, is what raises it as a question, intended to open a iscussion.
|