Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Nevadaref
I am now rethinking my earlier agreement with Tony that the clock should not have started on this play. I'm now thinking that a quick start and stop might be the correct procedure.
|
Regarding the clock, I think the correct answer is both. The clock may or may not start. The timer should only be starting the clock when indicated by the official...not on his own....unless the official clearly forgets. If the official indicates that time should start, it should...and it should only stop on the whistle. This can easily occur if the catch occurs on a line not covered by the official covering the throwin (who can't see if the player is on the line or not). If both parts are covered by the same official, he should not chop time in since there is a violation that makes the ball dead at the very instant that it would have started and that official has all the element needed to make the call. In a perfect world, the clock would never start in either case. So, there will alway be some "delays" between infractions and the whistle. I think there is no mistake in either case.
The terminology partially boils down to the fact that those on the rules committee at the time 4-23 changed with a "clarification" really change the rule without calling it such. For decades, the game was played with defenders taking a position with a foot on the line (and no one I know ever considered whether the foot was touching the line or not when deciding to call a block or charge). Accepting 4-23 for what was intended, I do not think they were trying to define the term of "the court". I think they were using in a descriptive sense and the exact meaning was intending to come from the entire context and not from those specific words.
.