Quote:
Originally Posted by gslefeb
The interp mentions putting time back on the clock. The OP is in a different situation. So I do not think the interp can be used in this situation.
The clock did not start, without definite knowledge, time can not be taken off the clock.
|
I disagree (and I'm sure others will disagree with me). I think this interp was critical in explaining that definite knowledge is not an 'all or nothing' thing in the eyes of the NFHS.
In this play, we have
definite knowledge that some time should have come off the clock. The interp gives us some (though still vague) reference to how much time should come off in a 'simultaneous' type situation.
The other rule I'm in favor of utilizing in a situation like this is the three-tenths rule. If a player can't control and shoot a ball in less than 0.3 seconds, then he can't control a rebound and call timeout in less than 0.3 seconds. I'm definitely in favor of an interpretation, case play, or even explicit rule change that makes 0.3 the minimum that must come off the clock in a case like this.