[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

I would like to address three items.

Item 1: The original play in this thread is a very simple on to handle. There are three schools of thought:

(1) R5-S9-A1 requires the Timer to start the game clock when the game official signaled time in and that is just want the Timer did. The game official signaled time in too soon but his mistake cannot be corrected. Therefore, the game is over.

(2) R5-S9-A1 requires the Timer to start the game clock when the game official signaled time in and that is just want the Timer did. The game official signaled time in too soon but his mistake cannot be corrected. But the game really cannot end like this so the only way to correct this is to invoke R2-S3 and have a do over.

(3) R5-S9-A4 is the governing rule. The inbounds play by Team A stands. The game clock is reset to the time on the game clock before that original throw-in by Team A and Team receives the ball for a throw-in nearest the spot where A3 caught A2’s throw-in pass.

In all three scenarios the clock was started to soon. That is the only mistake in this play. A mistake by the Timer does not negate a legal play.

Let us change the play slightly: There are 2:55 left on the game clock instead of 2.8 seconds. The game official signals time in too soon, and the Timer starts the clock because the game official signaled time in. When A3 catches A2’s throw-in pass the game clock shows 2:51 and counting. As soon as A3 catches A2’s throw-in pass, he turns and attempts a three point field goal. The attempt is successful and as the ball drops through the basket the game clock shows 2:47, and the game official sounds his whistle to stop play and the game clock. What should the game officials do now?

(1) Should the game officials tell the coaches that the game clock cannot be corrected because the game official signaled time in and the Timer started the game clock per R5-S9-A1?

(2) Should the game officials tell the coaches that because the Timer started the game clock when the game official signaled time in, they are going to invoke R2-S3, therefore A3’s three point field goal attempt is going to be negated, the game clock reset to the game clock is going to reset to 2:55 and Team A must redo its throw-in from the end line in its backcourt with the privilege of attempting throw-in from anywhere along the end line.

(3) Should the game officials reset the game clock to 2:51 because they have definite knowledge of how much time ran off the clock (4 seconds) before it should have been correctly started. Score A3’s three point field goal attempt. And give the ball to Team B for a throw-in on the end line in its backcourt with the privilege of attempting throw-in from anywhere along the end line.

The amended play that I have just given is no different than the play we have been discussing ad infinitum and ad nauseum. I doubt that there are any officials who would even consider solutions (1) or (2). And if solutions (1) and (2) are not acceptable for my amended play, how can they be acceptable for the original play in this thread. The logic in choosing solution (3) in the amended play is the same logic for applying it in the original play.


Item (2): I am offended by the implication that I led Mary to agree with me. Almost everyone taking part in this discussion has read in other threads somebody suggesting that somebody contact Mary for an interpretation. I gave the play to Mary along with a defense of my position. Mary was free to draw her own conclusions. If anybody were to send me a play with his interpretation as well as a defense of his position and was to ask for my opinion, I would do the same as Mary did. I would study the play. If I agreed with the person’s assessment of the play I would tell him so; I would find no need to repeat the person’s defense of his position. If I did not agree with him, I would say so along with a defense of my position. I think the problem is that Mary agreed with my position and some people do not want to accept Mary’s decision. I am sorry you do not want to accept her decision. I have also heard the arguments about the disclaimer at the front of NFHS rules books, but with regard to the basketball rules, I know for a fact that other people far more knowledgeable than me have advised her that the NFHS and not StateHSAA has to be the final word on rules interpretations. If the NFHS is not the final word then it would be possible to have fifty different interpretations for the same play, and that is not good.


Item (3): bz wanted to know the content of my emails with Gary Whelchel. I do not have a problem with bz’s request. If bz will email at DeNucciBASKETBALL (at) Hotmail (dot) com, I will then email him the contents of the emails that I exchanged with Gary. bz can then draw his own conclusions.

MTD, Sr.