hd3
Apr 25, 2007
11:34 AM | | ;
|
so, whilst bored during a rain-out i`m checking out the rules and the updates. lo` & behold, the coin toss rules have been changed. The old rule basically automatically switched things at the half - the new amended rule allows for a little thought process (maybe kick-off both halves to keep the wind). i asked our ref`s this past sunday and, like deer in headlites, they were unaware of the change and said it didn`t apply. okay. just wonder if that`s the "official" stance.
|
| |
|
Referee
Apr 25, 2007
1:05 PM | | | ; |
You must of not read the VA ammendmants
Page 17 - Rule 3, Section 1, Art. 1 ( c)
Page 17 - Rule 3, Section 1, Art. 2 REP: "At half, goals will be reversed, and 1st half kicking team shall be 2nd half receiving team".
| |
|
hd3
Apr 25, 2007
9:27 PM | | | ; |
That`s what raised the issue for me, that little "REP" after the amendment means it was repealed - ergo - it now follows the USFFA rule. I`m still open to alternative interpretations.
| |
|
HEAD OFFICIAL
Apr 26, 2007
4:16 PM | | | ; |
TO hd3....
Let me help you on this rule....
REP means to REPLACE
Page 17 - Rule 3, Section 1, Art. 1(c)
Page 17 - Rule 3, Section 1, Art. 2
REPLACE WITH.....
"At half, goals will be reversed, and 1st half kicking team shall be 2nd half receiving team".
The USFFA rulebook talks about three options
in art art 1 (a) and in art 1(c) I have a choose of three options and art 2 talks about switching directions between periods of first and second and third and fourth. REMEMBER the USFFA timing is 60 minute divided into 4 qtrs.
That is why they looked at you with a ... "like deer in headlites," LOOK.
Thank You
| |
|
Professor Spelling
Apr 26, 2007
4:24 PM | | | ; |
That would be "headlights." Ding.
| |
|
hd3
Apr 27, 2007
3:59 PM | | | ; |
To: Head official, I considered that option too, except that was the rule in the iffl prior to the 2006 amendments, so it made no sense to me to replace a rule in `06 w/a rule that was already amended. But, if you`re sellin`, i`m buyin` and it works for me.
Also, Spelling Prof: thanks for the ding, but i was surprised you didn`t ding the original ref`s response of, "you must of not" for the grammatical/spelling error. It`s "you must have not," not "you must of not," although it sounds like the latter.
;-)
| |
|
|