Quote:
Originally Posted by prekowski
So declaring something means saying it out loud. To infer that could be meant to be said after the fact would defeat the whole purpose of the rule.
I am not saying you are wrong, I am saying it is ambiguous. all if IFF were declared versus what they did do when it was not declared.
Thanks for your input, but like I said, it is not cut and dry.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by prekowski
These two seem contradictory. On one hand it says it was right to make call after the fact but then says NCAA requires it to be called at the time of play and does not allow after the fact. Please clarify what is meant here.
|
The apparent contradiction is easily explained, and should be obvious. Unless this game was played under NCAA rules (because ONLY the NCAA says it cannot be declared after the fact), it was right to do so in this case, as long as the other appropriate criteria was met.
Quote:
Originally Posted by prekowski
Your hypothetical example, while amusing, only shows that an umpire can, and I underscore can change an IFF call made or in this case unmade under R10-3-c. ~snip~
So while I can agree, that under the one rectification rule you cited (R10-3-c) that an umpire has the prerogative to change the call and perhaps even call an IFF after the fact, in so many ways, especially in this specific situation, it is not so cut and dry as it is apparently being made out to be, and a protest by either offense or defense could have been made depending on how the final call ended up, and the final outcome of the protest would be a subjective determination, not an objective one (i.e. the rule book is ambiguous on this particular issue).
I do however appreciate you taking the time to answer my question and giving your input.
|
It's more than obvious that, despite your initial question if the protest should be upheld, you have a strong belief that it should be. However, you are, in fact, wrong.
What you call an amusing "hypothetical example" is the cut and paste of the official play ruling from ASA National Umpire Staff. In case you don't grasp the significance, that means it has the effect of being THE RULE for that play.
Even if you want it to mean it COULD be an IFF, the only appropriate way to rule in this case is to ask 1) Does it meet every criteria to be an IFF by rule? 2) Does the umpire (no matter how many are involved) agree that it could have been caught with ordinary effort? If yes to both, then this play ruling is that the umpire SHALL declare it after the fact, and apply Rule 10.3-C to place or protect any players placed in jeopardy by the delayed ruling.
And NFHS has a similar ruling; and so do every other rules body EXCEPT NCAA. Call it a contradiction if you like, but unless this was played under NCAA rules, the protest should have zero chance of success, because the ruling is in full accord with the official rule interpretations.
You don't have to like it; you can believe it is ambiguous. But that is the proper ruling based on the authorities responsible to answer the question.