| hd3 | 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 | 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 | 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That`s what raised the issue for me, that little "REP" after the amendment means it was repealed - ergo - it now follows the USFFA rule.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 | 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 | 4:24 PM |
That would be "headlights." Ding. |
|
| hd3 | 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. ;-) |