Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge
If the foul is properly called and the clock is properly stopped, then if it is before the buzzer, then you should put time back on the clock.
|
Why put time back on the clock if it was "properly stopped"?
Is it possible that JRutledge is referring to one of those odd, rare 00.00.00 with no horn situations?
00.00.00 (with clock properly stopped) with no horn doesn't mean one puts time back the clock, one actually doesn't put time back on the clock, it means that the period hasn't ended (assuming that the horn is working properly). Finish the period with ten players on the court (other than free throws, obviously no catch and shoot).
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge
... it sounds like this would be treated like any other foul that would take place before time has expired.
|
True, but possibly over simplified. It wasn't like "any other foul that (took) take place before time has expired". There was a foul, then an unusual time delay, and then the buzzer sounded. Sounds like the timekeeper was asleep at the switch. First the officials have to deal with definite knowledge, and only if they have such definite knowledge, only then can they put time back on the clock and "(treat it) like any other foul that ... take(s) place before time has expired".
Of course, then the officials have to deal with whether, or not, the continuous motion was actually "continuous" (see my post #8 above). Please note that I'm not saying that this situation wasn't continuous, I just wanted to explore a hypothetical extrapolation of this situation to quench my own curiosity.