Quote:
Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
I'm not sure I would call it, I just said I would be tempted. My main point, though, was that the casebook specifically says that the ruling is in place to keep a team from benefiting by breaking the rule. The spirit of the rule (jeez, here we go again, right? ) seems to be that you shouldn't be able to get an advantage from breaking the delay rules. That's why ruling an immediate T is tempting. It's also why the NBA changed their delay rule. But you're right -- by rule, it's legal.
|
I don't see this any differently than fouling in the final minutes to stop the clock. The defense is gaining an advantage by fouling, yet we're very careful about calling such fouls intentional. Maybe the NF will make it a POE someday!
Bottom line - I wouldn't call a T in the situation PA Coach described either.
Quote:
Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
Rule 9-2-11 is a perfect example of a rule specifically covered in the rulebook.It is also the rule that we are discussing.Rule 9-2-11penalty 1 & 2 covers the penalty specifically,also.How can you make a statement like the one above? 
|
Woody, see Camron's post under Padgett's thread. Pick whichever of the 3 points listed that applies and you'll get your answer.
Mon Jul 01, 2002, 09:29pm
Threaded Mode
