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

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by rwest

The writer of the case book believes the POI is not the AP but the TRY IN FLIGHT!

And the writer is completely correct as per NFHS rule 4-36. The POI is the try in flight. And some of the POI's end up being AP's, and this is one of them.

And for the record, I'm not sure exactly whatinthehell you two are arguing about. The rules are very clear imo. Rule 4-36-1 lays out when you go to the POI. Rule 4-36-2 lays out how you resume play at the POI is in different situations. And in the play being discussed, you use 4-36-2(c) because neither team was in control.

It's straightforward to me.

[rwest]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

And the writer is completely correct as per NFHS rule 4-36. The POI is the try in flight. And some of the POI's end up being AP's, and this is one of them.

And for the record, I'm not sure exactly whatinthehell you two are arguing about. The rules are very clear imo. Rule 4-36-1 lays out when you go to the POI. Rule 4-36-2 lays out how you resume play at the POI is in different situations. And in the play being discussed, you use 4-36-2(c) because neither team was in control.

It's straightforward to me.

Some believe the POI in this case is the AP Arrow. I say the POI is not the AP Arrow, but the AP is the way we resume play, just as you have said. But others disagreed and the argument began.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by rwest

Some believe the POI in this case is the AP Arrow. I say the POI is not the AP Arrow, but the AP is the way we resume play, just as you have said. But others disagreed and the argument began.

This will hurt your argument, but I agree with you.


POI= Play is resumed at the point of interruption. We start over at the exact point where we would have been had there been no whistle. If this is not possible, play is resumed with an AP throwin.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by rwest

Some believe the POI in this case is the AP Arrow. I say the POI is not the AP Arrow, but the AP is the way we resume play, just as you have said. But others disagreed and the argument began.

Semantics, guys. And semantics that do nothing but confuse.

The POI is the POI. Nothing more; nothing less. You resume play according to the play conditions at the time of the POI.

You both obviously know the rule and how to apply it correctly. Why argue about meaningless semantics?

JMO

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Semantics, guys. And semantics that do nothing but confuse.

The POI is the POI. Nothing more; nothing less. You resume play according to the play conditions at the time of the POI.

You both obviously know the rule and how to apply it correctly. Why argue about meaningless semantics?

JMO

Why did the scorpion sting the frog?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Why did the scorpion sting the frog?

To get to the other side?

[rwest]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Semantics, guys. And semantics that do nothing but confuse.

The POI is the POI. Nothing more; nothing less. You resume play according to the play conditions at the time of the POI.

You both obviously know the rule and how to apply it correctly. Why argue about meaningless semantics?

JMO

Semantics can't be meaningless because by definition it is the study of meaning! Sorry, I couldn't help myself!

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

To get to the other side?

Because it's in his nature.

[rwest]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Why did the scorpion sting the frog?

It's what scorpions do. I think this is a comment directed at my propensity for arguing semantics!

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by rwest

It's what scorpions do. I think this is a comment directed at my propensity for arguing meaningless semantics.

Fixed it for ya...

And with any luck I pissed off both you and bainsey while doing so.

[rwest]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Fixed it for ya...

And with any luck I pissed off both you and bainsey while doing so.

Where you trying to piss us off?

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by rwest

Were you trying to piss us off?

Intent is not a factor.

[rwest]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Intent is not a factor.

Intentional Foul on mbyron. Two shots and the ball!

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by rwest

Intentional Foul on mbyron. Two shots and the ball!

Hmph. That's the thanks I get for fixing your spelling error?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by rwest

It's what scorpions do. I think this is a comment directed at my propensity for arguing semantics!

Nah, more about why I've engaged the argument for so long.