Buy your way out of violation?

[Nevadaref]

It has always been clear to me. I found it strange that the case book used to say to stop the game and give the ball back to the FTer without any penalty, but that's what I did because that was what the ruling said to do.
Now I don't that anymore.

He lost it. It's no longer at his disposal. Seems simple and logical to me.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

It has always been clear to me. I found it strange that the case book used to say to stop the game and give the ball back to the FTer without any penalty, but that's what I did because that was what the ruling said to do.
Now I don't that anymore.

He lost it. It's no longer at his disposal. Seems simple and logical to me.

I took a different reasoning for the case play; it prevents a defender from having to grab it and toss it away. Just call the violation. I agree with your bewilderment on the previous case play.

Your reasoning actually makes more sense to me, though.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by Juulie Downs

checkmark, meaning bad? Or good? what's right or wrong about what I said?

Checkmarks are good!

X's are bad.

NFC is reeeeaally bad.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

NFC is reeeeaally bad.

But they beat the AFC in the Pro Bowl this year.

Oh, that's not the NFC that you meant.