Fed OT Rules Question

[jTheUmp]

I think the rule is "unfortunate" in the sense that it essentially gives the defense a "free shot" at an opponent. However, that doesn't mean that I think the rule should be changed, for exactly the reason you imply.

If the rulesmakers try to introduce some type of "continuing action" dead-ball-as-a-live-ball foul, all that's going to do is make things worse, as each official's judgement of the "continuing action" is going to be different.

[jchamp]

Originally Posted by jTheUmp

I think the rule is "unfortunate" in the sense that it essentially gives the defense a "free shot" at an opponent. However, that doesn't mean that I think the rule should be changed, for exactly the reason you imply.

If the rulesmakers try to introduce some type of "continuing action" dead-ball-as-a-live-ball foul, all that's going to do is make things worse, as each official's judgement of the "continuing action" is going to be different.

Agreed. While I personally appreciate flexibility, any time the rules call for an official's judgment, inconsistency is a guaranteed result. The only situations this is desirable is when it's determined culturally to be a part of the game that we collectively accept (e.g., an umpire's strike zone). Football players, coaches and fans demand consistent officiating to the n-th degree. I will take clear and impossible to misapply rules that are not perfect over having to enforce based on my judgment. Even if the rule is not fair, it is known (sometimes), accepted, and universally applied (usually).

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by jTheUmp

I think the rule is "unfortunate" in the sense that it essentially gives the defense a "free shot" at an opponent. However, that doesn't mean that I think the rule should be changed, for exactly the reason you imply.

Especially when you consider he could fairly easily arrange to get a free shot at him, say, 2 days later when there are no witnesses.