Long Time Lurker, First Time Poster

NewNCref

Nevadaref wrote
Let me be clear: In the OP, I believe that the current NFHS rules are terrible and should be changed.

I don't know about terrible, but I definitely think there needs to be clarification about this (I think a casebook play would be exactly what we need).

Nevadaref wrote
I believe that the current NFHS rules call for the official to advance the ball for the team, if the AP arrow favors them.

Okay, I'm still with you.

Nevadaref wrote
I won't do that.

WOAH....you admit what the rules are regarding this, but refuse to enforce them

Nevadaref wrote
I will fudge this one and say that it falls under an interrupted game, then use 4-36 (POI).

And of course, while we're not going to enforce the correct rule, let's improperly apply another

Your post is completely absurd. What if I said, "The penalty for slapping the backboard (while not attempting to block a shot) is a technical foul. I won't do that. I'll just call it basket interference"? That's absurd! While I may believe that's what the penalty should be, I don't do it.

Maybe we should just all ask Nevada what he thinks the proper rule for everything should be.

Nevadaref

If you are going to get your old butt involved in a discussion between Dan and I, then the least that you could do is properly and fully quote me. Don't cut what I wrote without making note of that. Putting ellipsis is a proper indicator.

Furthermore, you could try to follow the point under debate.

Jurassic Referee wrote
...
2) I get it. Your interpretation of a rule that everyone else has agreed has a gray area is the correct interpretation. ...

Nope, I was referring to the "player or the court" wording at the end of 4-3-3 that Dan and I have been in disagreement over, not that my opinion is definitive regarding any gray area involving how to properly handle a timing error of the type presented in the OP.

So if you can't follow the conversation, hang up the phone.

Nevadaref

NewNCref wrote
And of course, while we're not going to enforce the correct rule, let's improperly apply another

Your post is completely absurd. What if I said, "The penalty for slapping the backboard (while not attempting to block a shot) is a technical foul. I won't do that. I'll just call it basket interference"? That's absurd! While I may believe that's what the penalty should be, I don't do it.

Maybe we should just all ask Nevada what he thinks the proper rule for everything should be.

Apples and Oranges, NC. In the timing situation, neither team has committed an infraction. In your slapping the backboard example someone has infringed the rules. I would properly punish that, but in the timing situation I am not advocating failing to properly punish a player or team by skipping any penalty given in the rules. I am advocating NOT screwing them over because of something totally unfair and beyond their control. Even JR wouldn't go to AP arrow in this situation, but if you wish to do so and take the police escort out of the gym, be my guest. I'm just not going down that path with you.

Jurassic Referee

Nevadaref wrote
If you are going to get your old butt involved in a discussion between Dan and I, then the least that you could do is properly and fully quote me.

My "old butt"? Gollygee, whatever happened to the guy that got his panties in a bunch about name calling and degrading? Tsk, tsk. Be an adult, Nevada.

I agree with Dan that you're the Emperor of Caca. Trying to weasel the rules around to say that an AP arrow would be the correct call is ludicrous, but typical of your mindset.

JoeTheRef

Nevadaref wrote
Because there are two completely different rules that would come into play. If the ball went OOB untouched, 9-2-2 is the governing rule and the penalty for section 2 on page 56 says that the throw-in goes back to the original spot. If the official sounds the whistle to stop the game for a clock problem, the we need to use the rule that governs that stoppage. That rule says to go to the location of the ball, so 4-3-3 must be consulted and that will determine the placement of the ensuing throw-in.

I keep seeing your reference to 4-3-3. Do you not know that this rule is to set the direction of the INITIAL ARROW, that would be the setting the arrow at the beginning of the game or the beginning of OT. This has nothing to do with the OP. Furthermore, the original post states that after coming out of TO after a made basket, Team A rolls the ball down the court...... The official blew the whistle before the throw-in ENDED, the ball is dead, whether the whistle was inadvertent or to correct the clock, the throw-in after a made basket did not end, nor was there a violation on the throw-in team, so you give the ball back to the Team A, back at the endline (and he can run the endline), and let's play.

JoeTheRef

I must be missing something, or not reading everything. The majority of us would put the time back on the clock and the ball back in play at the endline. To put the ball in play where the ball was, in my opinion wouldn't work for me, simply because the throw-in never ended, so how can I change the location of the throw-in? But to try and justify by any rule to give the ball back to Team B in this situation is absurd.

In the caseplay 7.5.4 sit. D.. Official inadverntely blows the whistle while Team A's successful try is airborne.. Ruling. Even though by rule there is no team control during this dead ball period, the ball would be given to TEam B for a throw-in anywhere along the endline. Team B would have clearly received the ball had the official not acidentally sound his/her whistle.

Yes, I know that caseplay is talking about an IW, but the intent of the ruling by the FED in that situation could and should be applied in this situation. So in the OP, Team A would not or could not lose possession because of the idiot timekeeper starting the clock when it shouldn't have started, period.

26 Year Gap

I heard back from my interpreter and will post his response here. Some will agree and some will disagree. And, no, firing the clock operator on the spot was not part of the response.

interesting play and connects with the point I was attempting to make at the mid-season meetings about being aware of the clock in crucial situations...there are many different situations that occur and not a lot of guidance in the rule book, which then allows Rule 2-3 (Referee's Authority) to take over...that rule along with experience, rule knowledge and common sense will hopefully provide for a ruling that is FAIR...I would say in the situation presented, that the ball should be inbounded at the spot closest to where the ball was when the whistle was blown i.e. near the division line, and that the clock should be reset to the original time i.e. 32.3(I think it was)...

Dan_ref

JoeTheRef wrote
I must be missing something, or not reading everything. The majority of us would put the time back on the clock and the ball back in play at the endline. To put the ball in play where the ball was, in my opinion wouldn't work for me, simply because the throw-in never ended, so how can I change the location of the throw-in? But to try and justify by any rule to give the ball back to Team B in this situation is absurd.

Yeah, most of us would kill the play, fix the clock & restart the throw-in. Simple enough, although it does get tricky if you kill the play after the touch but before team control.

Some of us would prefer to dream up alternate-universe interpretations and hand them down from the mountain top carved onto tablets. :shrug:

SoInZebra

I didn't fire the time keeper......just made him buy a round after the game. Thanks all for your thoughts.

etruland

That's not an IW. WE have a timing mistake. Since we must put time back on, put ball back to throw in spot. 😎

NewNCref

Nevadaref wrote
I am advocating NOT screwing them over because of something totally unfair and beyond their control.

Nevada, I'm not arguing about whether they're getting "screwed over", but if the rules say to do something, I feel like that's what needs to be done. Does it suck? Yeah, probably, but that's not my judgement to make.

I'm also not advocating going to the AP, because it's not an inadvertent whistle.

Scrapper1

etruland wrote
That's not an IW. WE have a timing mistake. Since we must put time back on, put ball back to throw in spot. :cool:

Hey Earl. Welcome to the forum!!

I agree that it's technically not an inadvertent whistle. But why does putting time back on the clock mean that we must go back to the original throw-in spot? I don't get the connection between those two things.

socalreff

Scrapper1 wrote
Hey Earl. Welcome to the forum!!

I agree that it's technically not an inadvertent whistle. But why does putting time back on the clock mean that we must go back to the original throw-in spot? I don't get the connection between those two things.

Let me try to simplify this whole thing. This is an official's timeout. The official blew the whistle to make a correction. If a team calls a timeout before the throw-in is completed, where is the next throw-in? The ball has not yet achieved any status other than its original position.
On a throw-in, if the ball bounces in the frontcourt, has it attained front court status? No. A player in the backcourt may be the 1st to touch it after it touches the floor in the frontcourt.
The same applies to this situation.

Dan_ref

socalreff wrote
Let me try to simplify this whole thing. This is an official's timeout.

Officials don't get time outs.

"Official's timeout" is announcer-speak.

Mark Dexter

socalreff wrote
On a throw-in, if the ball bounces in the frontcourt, has it attained front court status? No. A player in the backcourt may be the 1st to touch it after it touches the floor in the frontcourt.

Yes, it has attained front court status. Take another look at 4-4-2. The rules for backcourt violation and backcourt status are related, but there are key differences.

JoeTheRef

Mark Dexter wrote
Yes, it has attained front court status. Take another look at 4-4-2. The rules for backcourt violation and backcourt status are related, but there are key differences.

Mark, I think he has it correct. If the ball and only the ball touches the front court, it does not attain front court status yet.

Adam

JoeTheRef wrote
Mark, I think he has it correct. If the ball and only the ball touches the front court, it does not attain front court status yet.

Just because there's no team control doesn't mean it hasn't attained FC status.

Mark Dexter

JoeTheRef wrote
Mark, I think he has it correct. If the ball and only the ball touches the front court, it does not attain front court status yet.

NFHS 4-4-2:
A ball which is in contact with a player or with the court is in the frontcourt if neither the ball nor the player is touching the backcourt.

Q.E.D.

Mark Dexter

JoeTheRef wrote
Mark, I think he has it correct. If the ball and only the ball touches the front court, it does not attain front court status yet.

Nevadaref

JoeTheRef wrote
I keep seeing your reference to 4-3-3. Do you not know that this rule is to set the direction of the INITIAL ARROW...

Sorry, it's a typo. I meant 4-4-3, which deals with BALL LOCATION. I've gone back and edited my previous posts to the correct number.

JoeTheRef wrote
The official blew the whistle before the throw-in ENDED, the ball is dead, whether the whistle was inadvertent or to correct the clock, the throw-in after a made basket did not end, nor was there a violation on the throw-in team, so you give the ball back to the Team A, back at the endline (and he can run the endline), and let's play.

Joe, what you are missing is that there is not a rule in the book which says to do what you seem to think is THE way to handle the situation.
Even though the stoppage occurred during a throw-in, the POI rule does not apply because the reason for the stoppage is NOT one of those listed in 4-36-1. We agree that this is not an accidental whistle, right?

It is unfortunate, but I believe that the rule which governs this play is 6-4-3e. That describes the conditions under which the ball became dead. That rule says to use the AP arrow at the location of the ball.

See the problem?

« Previous Page Next Page »