I'm just watching. I don't know *why* the answer was given that way. I think it's one of two things:

1) The given answer was wrong (i.e., the error was correctable and A(?) wins the game).

2) You can't correct an error after the game is "over."

I'm looking for support for #2 -- but I haven't fouond much.

Nor have I. If 1) is the correct, then we can forgive them for being wrong. :)

If 2) is correct, I sure wish they'd explain it. :(

Not to beat this to death but I think jurisdiction and
score verification is the point. I agree that verification
almost always means making sure the book matches the
scoreboard but it can also mean making sure the book itself
is correct. This case is where the scoreboard (oops,
I should have said scorebook is incorrect) is
incorrect. There's also guidance on this in NCAA women's
mechanics, where the officials are required to stick around if the final score differential is 4 points or less.
Granted, this is done to ensure that no *timing* mistakes
have been made, but this might be extended to include 2-10
issues as well. It sure would be good to have the quiz
author's opinion on this.

[Edited by Dan_ref on Jul 25th, 2001 at 12:08 PM]

I think more important here would be the safety of the scorekeepers who caused the mess in the first place.

Approving the final score (to me, at least) means settling any discrepancies or errors, and then indicating that the score of the official (home) book is correct.

Well, you are beating it to death! :)

It's not a point of jurisdiction. Everybody agrees that the jurisdiction has NOT ended. That's not the point. The point is whether the error can be corrected or not because the game is ever. It's obvious that the officials' still have jurisdiction but whoever wrote this believes that the error is not correctible, simply because the horn sounded.

Excuse me a second while I get a bigger stick. :)

OK, I'm back now. So, if we have jurisdiction what else
(besides the quizzer's opinion) prevents us from utilizing
2-10? I think we agree that it's not so clear cut and we'll
both be happy to live with a definitive interpretation.
All I'm saying is that I can't for the life of me think
of anything other than jurisdiction to justify the given
answer and we agree that jurisdiction is not the issue.
You are saying that 2-10 no longer applies because the
game is "over", I'm saying the game is in fact not "over"
until the final score is verified, which coincides with
the end of our jurisdiction.

No, I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that seems to be what the gentleman who wrote the quiz is saying! BOING!

I think I just snapped! :D

I don't know if the man is right or wrong. Maybe he knows something I don't or perhaps he just put the wrong damn answer down! :)

Either way, jurisdiction ending has nothing to do with it, because it hasn't ended. He's baseing his interp. on soomething else. Heaven only knows what it is.

The biggest problem here is that (unless I'm missing it) there is no rule expressly permitting or prohibiting a correctable error from being corrected after the game has ended, but before approval of the final score. Maybe the author was just going on the assumption that if it's not in the book, it's not allowed (although that kinda conflicts with 2-3).

Oy! Can't someone just figure out why this would be false (if it is false!)

No, we can't. That's why there's all this discussion.

I think we need a fed interp on this. If it was any other quarter we would correct the error after the horn, why would the final period be any different? I guess it would be wrong, but if this happened to me, I would wipe the points and run for the hills.

Hey hey! Someone using a little logic instead of the rule book...interesting!<br><br>I never really thought of it that way. Even though I know there are "special" rules that govern the end-of-game situation, this may be the best way to approach it, especially if we're unsure; which, to this point, it looks like we are!<br><br>I'd still like to hear their reasoning on this one, though.... :confused:

We agree (although I was giving him the benefit of the doubt
by introducing jurisdiction)

Quote:

I think I just snapped! :D

Again, we agree :p

Quote:

I don't know if the man is right or wrong. Maybe he knows something I don't or perhaps he just put the wrong damn answer down! :)

Agree

Quote:

Either way, jurisdiction ending has nothing to do with it, because it hasn't ended. He's baseing his interp. on soomething else. Heaven only knows what it is.

Agree. Sh*t, there's nothing left to argue about.
We'll find something sooner or later! ;)

Consolation!
 

If there's one consolation, at least you know that you will <b>never</b> be going back to that school to ref again!

I hate to say it, but I think the rules would say wipe the score off, put <u>no</u> time back on the clock, declare the game over, and <b>phone your assignor to communicate <font size=+2>first</font> what happened</b> -- maybe even from the changing room, but certainly from your car.

I've tried to get in touch with the person who handed out the tests, but apparently I have the wrong email address.

I'll keep trying.

Until then, I'd hope whoever started this thread closes it before the SPCA comes after us.

Have you had any luck in finding out if #18 was correctable
under 2-10