Quote:
Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
Quote:
Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
Quote:
Originally posted by Nevadaref
Do-overs are only allowed during the SEC tournament in NCAA Women's play. 
I have to agree with MTD on this one.
4.1 on the clock, ball OOB near the division line.
Don't negate a completed throw-in. That was action which took place and has to count.
Since you don't know exactly how much time to take off the clock, don't take off any. Tell the coaches that the timer made a mistake and that's the way it goes.
Hopefully, the NFHS will adopt the .3 minimum rule.
|
That's patently ridiculous. It's completely contrary to the very explicit language of R5-10-1.
|
It is absolutely not "patently ridiculus" because it is the correct thing by rule.
|
Cite a rule that negates R5-10 then and backs up that statement, please.
You have a throw-in with 4.1 seconds left and a team having to go 84 feet to score. The timer scews up (please let it be the HOME timer), so you now correct the timing mistake by giving that team a throw-in with 42 feet to go to score and the exact same amount of time left on the clock. Helluva deal for the offense! The defense might not be too happy with your reasoning though. Hell, if I was the home timer, I'd screw up again and give my team a throw-in under the basket that they're shooting at. You'd go along with that, and give them the whole 4.1 seconds to boot too. Ludicrous!
Questions:
(1) If the throwing team hadda scored on a quick, long pass with the clock not starting instead of the play cited, and you discovered the clock problem during the dead ball after they scored, are you gonna count the basket and then give the team that was scored on a throw-in with 4.1 seconds on the clock? Using your logic, you pretty well have to, don't you?
(2)If the player caught the first throw-in pass at center and then travelled, and you found out that the clock never started until
after the travel, are you gonna give the other team the ball at center for the violation, and still give them the full 4.1 seconds also? Using your logic again, you have to, don't you?
As far as I can tell so far, you can't cite a rule that backs up your statement and negates R5-10, and your whole argument is based on the play happening in a space-time continuum where no time is ever consumed for actual happenings. Correct?
Lah me.