Get it right? Double foul while shot in the air.

[rwest]

Originally Posted by bainsey

It appears we have different ways of thinking that will lead to the same result.

If I'm reading Mr. West's words correctly, he's emphasizing the word POINT in "point of interruption." In other words, at what point was the game interrupted? Was there team control?

That would be fine, but as others pointed out, 4-36-1 clearly states that POI is a method of resuming play, not just a point in the game. In other words, POI is the effect, not just the cause.

(Aside: I'm an I.T. guy, too. I enjoy these analyses, but when there's a dispute, I find that the written definition supersedes all.)

But so is AP. The AP is a method of putting the ball in play under a certain set of circumstance one of which the POI is no team control. The POI is not the Arrow in my opinion. It is the method of putting the ball in play when the POI is no team control and we have no other way of putting the ball in play like a throw-in or free throw.

Guys part of being an engineer is seeing things in terms of black and white and not so much gray. It is an occupational hazard of mine to be very analytical. I can't help it. We all get to the same result. I just look at it differently. It makes more sense to me to think of it in terms of POI in the case being no team control. And since we were not in the process of administering a throw-in or free throw we go with the arrow.

And if you haven't figured out by now, I love a good debate. I enjoy my time on this board!

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by rwest

Guys part of being an engineer is seeing things in terms of black and white and not so much gray. It is an occupational hazard of mine to be very analytical. I can't help it.

Sure you can, and that's coming from a black-and-white thinker, too. Try officiating soccer; that'll help you use your "gray matter."

APG is right on, though. The definition supersedes your opinion. While I find there are indeed some flaws in the rule book's wording, this isn't one of them. It appears you'll have to adjust accordingly.

[rwest]

Originally Posted by bainsey

Sure you can, and that's coming from a black-and-white thinker, too. Try officiating soccer; that'll help you use your "gray matter."

APG is right on, though. The definition supersedes your opinion. While I find there are indeed some flaws in the rule book's wording, this isn't one of them. It appears you'll have to adjust accordingly.

Official interpretations also supersedes our opinions but that doesn't prevent some from disregarding them when they don't like the interpretation.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by rwest

Official interpretations also supersedes our opinions but that doesn't prevent some from disregarding them when they don't like the interpretation.

That can be problematic, chief.

"I don't like the interpretation, so I'm going to enforce it my way." Such attitudes only lead to inconsistencies among us, and that doesn't make it better for the masses. It's better to adjust yourself to what everyone agreed upon (and remember, rules and interpretations are ultimately agreements).

Granted, in this case, your alternative viewpoint is merely a different means to the same end. Just be careful with disregarding things that have already been agreed upon. You can disagree, just keep on enforcing.

[rwest]

Originally Posted by bainsey

That can be problematic, chief.

"I don't like the interpretation, so I'm going to enforce it my way." Such attitudes only lead to inconsistencies among us, and that doesn't make it better for the masses. It's better to adjust yourself to what everyone agreed upon (and remember, rules and interpretations are ultimately agreements).

Granted, in this case, your alternative viewpoint is merely a different means to the same end. Just be careful with disregarding things that have already been agreed upon. You can disagree, just keep on enforcing.

I don't disregard official interpretations. Others on this board do when it doesn't fit with how they have interpreted the rule. You and I can't arbitrarily agree to disregard an official interpretation. You and I can have different interps but it is the official interp that carries the most weight! Otherwise, we can have utter chaos if we all interp the rules differently and disregard the governing body.