|
Mon Dec 20, 1999, 10:34pm
|
|||
|
|||
By rule and in theory it is correct. I would have called the 3 seconds and have the team lose the ball. Dont call anything "goofy" unless you are really forced to.
|
|
Tue Dec 21, 1999, 01:38am
|
|||
|
|||
Sorry Richard but I disagree since it was the players intention to avoid a 3-second violation. Therefore I would assess the technical foul.
And that is what makes us all good officials. We listen to others and use what we feel is correct for the situation as it is played out.
|
|
Tue Dec 21, 1999, 02:33am
|
|||
|
|||
Sorry Richard but I disagree since it was the players intention to avoid a 3-second violation. Therefore I would assess the technical foul. Would someone please post an NF rule on this? Thank you!
|
|
Tue Dec 21, 1999, 07:48pm
|
|||
|
|||
quote: B_Sillman: What happened to Advantage/Disadvantage? By calling the 3 seconds,team A loses the ball and the right team gets the ball. By calling a technical, there is nothing gained, except the problems that it causes when trying to explain it to the coach that his or her player got the T (probably does not know the rule anyway). Like I said previously, in theory you can call it, in practice what is better game management?  .Like you said, it is a great game and we all learn from each other. Have a great season
|
|
Tue Dec 21, 1999, 09:15pm
|
|||
|
|||
quote: Well, 10-3-4 says it is a technical for a player to "leave the court for an unauthorized reason or delay returning after legally being out-of-bounds." While I cannot find a definition for "legal" reasons for being out of bounds, the case book is directly on point to the post that started this thread. Case 10-3-4a describes the play almost word-for-word and the ruling is a technical. Case 10-3-4b then describes a play where the thrower, after inbounding the ball, moves along the end line prior to coming inbounds behind a screen. The ruling is a technical foul because, "in this case it should be obvious that [the] movement out of bounds along the endline was to take advantage of the screen." I must say, without the case book's interpretation, I wouldn't have applied this rule to either situation. In fact, without a definition for "legal" reasons for being out of bounds, I am reluctant to expand the definition beyond the two examples in the case book. Perhaps the rule book [as opposed to the case book] should be clearer on this. Does anyone else have thoughts on this? [This message has been edited by Todd (Mike) Mullen (edited December 21, 1999).]
|
 |
| Bookmarks |
|
|
Linear Mode
