Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Fan10
I saw this happen recently in a game: Team A inbounded the ball, and the game clock did not start. After a little time had elaspsed, the refs blew the whistle to adjust the clock. After discussion at the table, five seconds were removed from the game clock. Team A was then given the ball on the side at the point where they were at when play was stopped. Team A then took seven seconds to get it across the midcourt line. No violation was called.
I can see where if Team A calls timeout getting a new ten seconds. They've given up a timeout in exchange for the fresh ten seconds. And, I can see if Team B deflects a ball out of bounds getting a new ten seconds since the violation that caused the ball to become dead was against Team B. But, in this case, it seemed that the clock malfunction (something that was beyond either team's control) rewarded Team A.
I'm just a fan, but my buddy and I were discussing it. We said that if Team A was going to get a new ten seconds, they should have been given the ball on the inbounds under the goal--which sounded logical since they would then have ten seconds to go the full half court rather than ten seconds to only go part of the half court.
I'm sure that this was called correctly, but it just didn't seem right. Thoughts?
|
You have a couple of issues here which may have affected each other, but by rule are not related. The officials noticed the clock malfunction and stopped the game to correct the situation. Afterward, they correctly resumed play at the point which it was interrupted. By FED rules, if they adjusted the clock, it had to be backed by definite knowledge of the elapsed time, in this case most likely the trail official's ten second count. In reality, many officials estimate the timing error and make an adjustment anyway.
And as for the second issue, no matter why the game was stopped, the ten second count starts over. The violation requires continuous control in the backcourt for ten seconds.