I posted this in another thread, but didn't get an responses and probably rightly so as this wasn't directly on the topic of that thread and it continued quite forcefully in its main direction. So, I'm giving it a thread of its own as I look for feedback.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by btaylor64
You all might not think its right, but if I am the R that night and my partners are alright and maybe just maybe if they are not alright with it that is how I would do it. I am going to do what I think is right and fair for the kids, and sometimes what is right and fair to the kids might be something to the contrary of what I just said. Until I hear an official clarification of what the NFHS wants to do I am going to invoke elastic power.
|
I recently spoke with an official who has a similar philosophy about the note in 5-8-2.
When a player is injured as in Art. 2(a), the official may suspend play after the ball is dead or is in control of the injured player's team or when the opponents complete a play. A play is completed when a team loses control (including throwing for goal) or withholds the ball from play by ceasing to attempt to score or advance the ball to a scoring position. When necessary to protect an injured player, the official may immediately suspend play.
His position is that he is not going to stop play when a team attempts a try for goal and misses, if he can see that they have an easy rebound and put back. He feels that is the right thing to do in the case of an opponent being down injured away from the area of the play.
It seems that by the book, the whistle should be blown, no rebound permitted, and the game resumed with the AP arrow.
How do others feel about this? Is this a poor NFHS rule? Should we follow it anyway? Should we ignore it? Should we lobby for it to be changed?
Sun Dec 10, 2006, 01:20am
Similar Threads
Threaded Mode
