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?
|
I think that the play was called correctly. It do agree that there is an unfair element to the procedure, but it's what we have right now.
I also like the FIBA rule where the time limit to get the ball across the division line is reset only on a B foul or a COP.