VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 12345678910 ]
Subject: Re: Have Finally Succeeded in Reaching A Television Rules Analyst


Author:
sparman
[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]
Date Posted: 08:32:47 12/24/21 Fri
In reply to: An Observer 's message, "Have Finally Succeeded in Reaching A Television Rules Analyst" on 00:17:13 12/24/21 Fri

Thanks for bird dogging this. Three comments:

1) Surace was not calling a timeout after the play, he was calling it before the play was run. As for the effect of allowing a timeout, it's no worse than when a coach tries to call a time out an instant before a kicker kicks, or a key final play is being run and the defense wants to see what offensive set is being used. Of course it is SOP to see a play begin and the refs run in to stop it for things like illegal procedure, or for that matter when an offensive penalty is enforced after a play is completed but must be re-run. Not to mention the entire point of replay is allow the possibility of running a play over again, depending upon the situation.

2) Yes, had Harvard's attempt failed, they should have been given another chance. I don't think anyone from the Princeton side has argued for inconsistent application of the rule.

3) This is not a case of doing something the rulebook fails to say you cannot do, rather it is a case of doing something the rulebook expressly says you (the replay offical) CAN do.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:
[> [> [> Subject: Re: Have Finally Succeeded in Reaching A Television Rules Analyst


Author:
sparman
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 08:39:21 12/24/21 Fri

Meant to say the "point of allowing challenges and replay", not just "point of replay".

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]


Login ] Create Account Not required to post.
Post a public reply to this message | Go post a new public message
* HTML allowed in marked fields.
* Message subject (required):

Name (required):

  Expression (Optional mood/title along with your name) Examples: (happy, sad, The Joyful, etc.) help)

  E-mail address (optional):

* Type your message here:


Notice: Copies of your message may remain on this and other systems on internet. Please be respectful.

[ Contact Forum Admin ]


Forum timezone: GMT-5
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.