[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

State high school championship final game. Shot clock used. Team B 65, Team A 64. Fourth period. Fifteen seconds left in game. Both teams come out of a timeout. Team A, with no timeouts remaining, inbounds in their backcourt. Inbounder A1 passes to A2, who fumbles (game clock and shot clock legally start on inbounds touch) the ball away, but eventuality, after two seconds pass (with deflections but no control by both teams), secures control of the ball by holding it and the begins to dribble. Facing strong defensive pressure in his backcourt, A2 is still in his backcourt when the shot clock is at 25 seconds (game clock at five seconds) and the trail official calls a ten second violation on Team A. Team A head coach politely argues that Team A only had "control" of the ball for approximately eight seconds (proven after game on videotape) in the backcourt, quoting 9-8 and 4-2, and should not have had the ten second violation called, depriving Team A of a chance to win the game.

A two second time difference shouldn't be just passed off as, "Sorry Coach, this is a shot clock game". The ten second rule with the language "in continuous control of the ball which is in his/her backcourt for 10 seconds" is a fundamental basketball rule that hasn't changed in over forty years. It should take more than just a one sentence guideline, "Use the shot clock to administer the 10-second backcourt count (9-8)" (that includes the actual unchanged existing rule citation) to overturn such a fundamental rule. It's an oversight with an unintended consequence, it has to be. Luckily, there are a few different ways to correct it. The NFHS tried to fit a round NCAA peg into a square NFHS hole, with little attention to detail (even JRutledge said that the language was very similar, I say maybe copied, with no regard for differing details and unintended consequences).