"no new inning after xx"

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

OK, not really hijack, just a tangent.

In a timed game, what is your criteria/philosophy for when to stop the timer during play.
Don't say lightning or a helicopter on the field, but try for helpful.

Does it ever include an obvious stall?

No, it doesn't include an obvious stall. No new after 90 means no new after 90.

If the "stall" is a legal use of the game rules, it is part of the 90 minutes. If one coach is arguing about a call, it is part of the 90 minutes. If there is a minor injury stoppage (not requiring outside medical attention, and not exceeding the "coach, either we play now, or you sub now" time frame), it is part of the 90 minutes.

If the "stall" is NOT a legal use of the game rules, there are other game rules that already apply (ASA 5.4-E, 5.4-F, 10.1), so why make up a new one?

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

No, it doesn't include an obvious stall. No new after 90 means no new after 90.

If the "stall" is a legal use of the game rules, it is part of the 90 minutes. If one coach is arguing about a call, it is part of the 90 minutes. If there is a minor injury stoppage (not requiring outside medical attention, and not exceeding the "coach, either we play now, or you sub now" time frame), it is part of the 90 minutes.

If the "stall" is NOT a legal use of the game rules, there are other game rules that already apply (ASA 5.4-E, 5.4-F, 10.1), so why make up a new one?

I knew you would support my not stopping for legal stalls, but wanted to see if there is a non-supported school of thought.

The bold is what I was getting at and trying to see how subjective each of us is.