resumption of play

[palmettoref]

Hello guys. I was reviewing the NFHS exam and a particular question is continually coming up for discussion at our local district meetings. It is #49 -----> The resumption of play procedure is only in effect following a charged time out or intermission. I understand the resumption of play procedure but if you have a situation where team A request a time out for a correctable error and it is still correctable, then team A is not going to be charged with a time out. Thus we will put the ball back into play and may utilize the resumption of play procedure if there is an unusual delay. Therefore I would answer that question as FALSE. Any information or help with this situation will be aprreciated. Thanks

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by palmettoref

Hello guys. I was reviewing the NFHS exam and a particular question is continually coming up for discussion at our local district meetings. It is #49 -----> The resumption of play procedure is only in effect following a charged time out or intermission. I understand the resumption of play procedure but if you have a situation where team A request a time out for a correctable error and it is still correctable, then team A is not going to be charged with a time out. Thus we will put the ball back into play and may utilize the resumption of play procedure if there is an unusual delay. Therefore I would answer that question as FALSE. Any information or help with this situation will be aprreciated. Thanks

You're splitting hairs. Answer false if you like. It will be graded as incorrect.

[GoodwillRef]

Originally Posted by palmettoref

Hello guys. I was reviewing the NFHS exam and a particular question is continually coming up for discussion at our local district meetings. It is #49 -----> The resumption of play procedure is only in effect following a charged time out or intermission. I understand the resumption of play procedure but if you have a situation where team A request a time out for a correctable error and it is still correctable, then team A is not going to be charged with a time out. Thus we will put the ball back into play and may utilize the resumption of play procedure if there is an unusual delay. Therefore I would answer that question as FALSE. Any information or help with this situation will be aprreciated. Thanks

#49 True 7-5-1; 8-1-2

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by palmettoref

Hello guys. I was reviewing the NFHS exam and a particular question is continually coming up for discussion at our local district meetings. It is #49 -----> The resumption of play procedure is only in effect following a charged time out or intermission. I understand the resumption of play procedure but if you have a situation where team A request a time out for a correctable error and it is still correctable, then team A is not going to be charged with a time out. Thus we will put the ball back into play and may utilize the resumption of play procedure if there is an unusual delay. Therefore I would answer that question as FALSE. Any information or help with this situation will be aprreciated. Thanks

The correct answer is TRUE.

Rules 7-5-1, 8-1-2 and 10-1-5(b) specifically say that the resumption of play procedures only apply to two situations- delays following a charged time out or intermission. There are no other situations listed in the rules, including the one that you detailed above, that are listed as also being eligible for the resumption-of-play procedures.

In the situation that you listed- i.e. a team failing to be ready after any official's time-out, then rule 10-1-5(b) is used. There is no warning given because the circumstances are not one of the two situations listed as being eligible for delay-of-game procedures. Iow, because it's not after a time-out or intermission, it's an immediate team technical foul charged to team A, with no warning, for delaying the game by preventing the ball from being put into play.

Btw, the FED-issued answer sheet for the Part I exam also lists the correct answer for #49 as being TRUE.

[palmettoref]

JR. Thanks for the help. If you or anyone else has a copy of the answers, I would appreciate a copy for myself. They can be emailed or I can give a fax #

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by palmettoref

JR. Thanks for the help. If you or anyone else has a copy of the answers, I would appreciate a copy for myself. They can be emailed or I can give a fax #

Palmetto, personally I'd cut my own nuts off before I'd send out the exam answers to anyone before every state in the country had finished writing the exam. There's just too much of a chance that the answers could get out to other officials who haven't written the exam yet.

You're doing the absolute best thing right now that you possibly do imo. You're asking about individual questions, and you're getting feedback and also sparking a good discussion about a particular play. That's how we learn, not by just getting exam answers. Jmo as always.

Welcome to the forum.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Palmetto, personally I'd cut my own nuts off before I'd send out the exam answers to anyone.......

Now that's dedication to a cause.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Now that's dedication to a cause.

It's also rhetorical.

I ain't that dedicated, JAR.

[palmettoref]

JR. Then based on the information in 7-4-4, a correctable error would be considered an "infraction" thus it would disqualify this situation from utilizing the ROP procedure? I'm just trying to get a good grasp on ROP.

[palmettoref]

our state does not use the fed exam. we only use it as a refresher tool and to get us in the right frame of mind when we do take our exam. I wouldn't want any answers for any reason other than to review how I have answered the exam and to share with our officials within our district.

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

The correct answer is TRUE.

Rules 7-5-1, 8-1-2 and 10-1-5(b) specifically say that the resumption of play procedures only apply to two situations- delays following a charged time out or intermission. There are no other situations listed in the rules, including the one that you detailed above, that are listed as also being eligible for the resumption-of-play procedures.

In the situation that you listed- i.e. a team failing to be ready after any official's time-out, then rule 10-1-5(b) is used. There is no warning given because the circumstances are not one of the two situations listed as being eligible for delay-of-game procedures. Iow, because it's not after a time-out or intermission, it's an immediate team technical foul charged to team A, with no warning, for delaying the game by preventing the ball from being put into play.

Btw, the FED-issued answer sheet for the Part I exam also lists the correct answer for #49 as being TRUE.

When you say there are no other situations listed that are eligble for the resumption of play procedure, what about after a violation? Casebook7.5.2 Sit A says to put the ball on the floor after a violation, if there isn't someone ready to promptly make the ball live. It's not called resumption of play procedure, but it's the same set of actions.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

When you say there are no other situations listed that are eligble for the resumption of play procedure, what about after a violation? Casebook7.5.2 Sit A says to put the ball on the floor after a violation, if there isn't someone ready to promptly make the ball live. It's not called resumption of play procedure, but it's the same set of actions.

It might be the same set of actions but it doesn't carry the same consequences. In 7.5.2SitA, the penalty is a violation. There is no provision under 7-5-2 for an official warning to be given to a team after a subsequent repeat violation, as the resumption of play procedure in 8-1-2 carries. If the situation ever came up where there might be multiple violations by the same team, then the penalty if you chose to call it would be an immediate "T" for delaying the game by preventing the ball being put in play under R10-1-5b.

Good question.

[wfd21]

Another way to look at it is, the coach did not request, nor was he granted a time-out. The charged time out is a penelty for being wrong on the correctable error. He does not get to use a time-out, and there is no "timed" time-out. Therefore no resumption of play.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by wfd21

Another way to look at it is, the coach did not request, nor was he granted a time-out. The charged time out is a penelty for being wrong on the correctable error. He does not get to use a time-out, and there is no "timed" time-out. Therefore no resumption of play.

I think you have this backwards. The coach requests a TO to correct the error. See 10-5-2. IF the error is corrected, then no TO is charged.

If the determination that there is no error is made before the end of the TO, then the coach gets to use the remaining time as a TO. See 5.8.4A

[Kajun Ref N Texas]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

It might be the same set of actions but it doesn't carry the same consequences. In 7.5.2SitA, the penalty is a violation. There is no provision under 7-5-2 for an official warning to be given to a team after a subsequent repeat violation, as the resumption of play procedure in 8-1-2 carries. If the situation ever came up where there might be multiple violations by the same team, then the penalty if you chose to call it would be an immediate "T" for delaying the game by preventing the ball being put in play under R10-1-5b.

Good question.

I don't understand 7-5-1 c. or d.

Can you explain what situation this is referring to