Quote:
2.2.4 SITUATION C: Team B leads by a point with seconds remaining in the fourth quarter. A1 releases the ball on a try, but the noise level makes it difficult for the covering official (umpire) to hear the horn. The umpire signals a successful goal. The referee definitely hears the horn before A1 releases the ball, but does not realize the umpire counted the goal. The officials leave the visual confines of the playing area and are not aware of the controversy until the scorer comes to the officials’ dressing room. RULING: Even though the referee could have canceled the score if the officials had conferred before leaving, once the officials leave the visual confines of the playing area, the final score is official and no change can be made. In situations such as this, it is imperative that officials communicate with each other and that they do not leave until any problem regarding scoring or timing has been resolved. |
Quote:
That would be akin to seeing the traveling violation and calling it, but then enforcing the wrong penalty (perhaps awarding the ball OOB to the wrong team or counting a goal anyway after the travel because the player was fouled prior to the travel). Your respected official's rationale does not work in this case. It is certainly possible that the referee/umpire made the properly call, but improperly enforced the rule on the court. |
What if A1 releases a try and while still the in air runs over B1 committing a player-control foul... the official calls the PC; however, he counts the goal.
The official certainly misapplied the rule so can it not be corrected even if caught within the time limit? |
Quote:
|
Correctable Error ???
Quote:
Quote:
|
Yes, Billy, both of us are saying that it is a CE for the reason that you state and may be corrected.
Please carefully reread the wording "can it not be corrected [?]." Both of us are arguing against the new interp ruling. |
Been Around The Block A Few Times Myself ...
Quote:
|
Quote:
Maybe I should speak up because I do work for the Department of Redundancy Department. :D |
Sorry to resurrect an old thread, but I did a lot of poking and prodding and got a friend of a friend to get in touch with somebody on the Rules Committee, regarding the correctable error interp. Here is the response that was given:
Quote:
|
Thanks for the extra effort, Mr. Esteemed Colleague.
Of course, you know as well as I do that the response is about the most ludicrous thing that we've seen come out of the NFHS committee in the last 10 years. :( An official not knowing or not properly applying a rule is EXACTLY why rule 2-10 exists. Otherwise there wouldn't be any correctable errors! Of course, looking at some of the other interps, I'm not surprised. :eek: |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Peace |
NFHS Interpretation Of A NFHS interpretation ...
Quote:
In my humble opinion, this NFHS interpretation of a NFHS interpretation is the male version of a cowpie. |
Quote:
Quote:
So while I agree with you that Nevada overstated the case a bit, I think he's correct in saying that not applying the rule correctly (which is what happened in the interp) is EXACTLY why 2-10 exists. |
Quote:
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:56pm. |