I know your post was intended for JR, but I want to play too. :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle
Let's turn this sitch around a bit. What if the throw-in had been successful and you've got a substitution partially completed. Some of the subs have come on the floor, some have not. Some of the players have left, some have not. The ball has been thrown in, and....what, we just let it go and hope the rest of the subs hurry and finish going on and off? Or maybe we T them up if they do finish the substitution after the ball is live?
|
Yep, that is unfortunately what I think that the officials must do. It is really bad and isn't the common sense method, but it is what the rules say to do when more than 5 are on the court during a live ball. Hopefully, each team is subbing and these can be offsetting simultaneous Ts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle
You realize, of course, that the clock can't be running so long as the T continues to signal continued time-out. So...we play on without the clock? No. Of course you'd stop the play. You have no real choice. It's obvious. But why is it different if the throw-in is success and/or you have subs? Your basic premise of if-the-T-didn't-whistle-then-the-play-must-stand is inconsistent.
|
That might be true, it might not. The clock ran in 2.10.1 Sit B that I cited. It wasn't supposed to be running by rule in that play.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle
8) I have clearly cited all the necessary rules, and logically laid out the basis for this statement. It is plain. The fact that an official can continue to signal continued time-out is clearly codified. And we all do it regularly when we keep our hand raised. The fact that the clock cannot be started, even "as per rule," clearly indicates that this continued time-out signal trumps whatever play that official's partner(s) erroneously allows to happen. What other possible, logical conclusion can be drawn?.
|
Of course he can, but so what? What does it really mean? What weight does it carry? Now you are starting to make the point that you must in order to win this debate. The action of one official MUST trump the other, but which one? Unfortunately, for your case, I believe that I made the point that the rule of your "as per rule" is not applicable here due to there being no neglecting to signal. There is only a failure to recognize a partner's signal. So does the game continue until the partner's signal is recognized or he makes it recognized with a whistle? Right now, I believe that the principles in the case plays that I cited put the trump with the official who administered the throw-in and counted the 5-second violation. You are challenged to counter those.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle
... the T's hand in the air, without subs, is meaningless, despite clearly contradicting 5-9-1. Please provide a citation.
|
It is not meaningless; it just doesn't mean as much as the game action which occurred. Why? See the case book plays cited.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle
You then agreed with Tony that subs coming and going would make a difference. How can this be? Either the ball is allowed to be live while the T is signaling, or it isn't. What possible difference could subs make? Please provide a citation.
|
As far as the ball being live or dead, it doesn't make any difference whether or not there are subs out there. It just makes cleaning up the mess a whole lot worse.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle
You have said that if the T had blown his whistle before the 5 seconds was up, that would have made a difference. Why? If, as you assert, the ball is properly live. What is your basis for killing this live ball? Surely that basis is sufficient to continue the time-out. Please provide a citation.
|
For one thing there would not have been a violation. That means that the same team retains the throw-in when the game is resumed due to the POI rule. Play was interrupted during a throw-in.
By the strict application of the rules, there should be a T to each team that has subs out there during this action. You can probably get away with not giving them, but if we are talking about following the rules, then that wouldn't be precisely right.
As for the basis for the T blowing his whistle, see the next answer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle
You have said that since the T didn't blow his whistle, and the violation occurred, this is a regrettable, but non-correctable error. Please provide a citation.
|
There are many examples of officials errors resulting in regrettable situations and teams getting hosed, but they are not correctable. Givng the ball to the wrong team for a throw-in and having the throw-in touched inbounds is one example. If the official blows the whistle right after that, by the book, you can't give it back to the other team. What is the basis for blowing the whistle at that time? There isn't one, it really is too late per the rules. That whistle becomes an accidental whistle. = resume at the POI
Quote:
Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle
Finally, you seem clearly to base your reasoning around the ball absolutely becoming live because the L put it at the disposal of the thrower, this despite 6-1-2-Note and my generalization, which you agreed with, that there are times when some other rule takes precidence over 6-1-2. Please explain how the ball becoming live trumps 5-9-1 and the conclusions I have drawn from it. Please provide a citation.
|
See my long two-part post.
