View Single Post
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Mon Jan 01, 2001, 11:21pm
hoopsrefBC hoopsrefBC is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 176
Quote:
Originally posted by Mark Dexter
Quote:
Originally posted by Peter Devana
Had an interesting situation occur years ago . A1 on the line for 1-1- his team down by 2. Time left on clock 1.6seconds, A1 makes first shot- misses second but ball rebounds high above ring but clearly outside cylinder. Game horn goes off then A2 above ring and outside cylinder dunks it for 2. Official blows whistle counts 2 Pts- confers with timer -put .6sec back on clock and awards home team B the ball on base-line. Home team inbounds ball time runs out and visiting team wins ProvincialAAA Boys final. It happened to me - Was I wrong???
Is this rule different for FIBA?

In NF, the clock should not start until the touching by A2. If this ever happened to me as a timer, I would probably be killed by the other officials immediately after the game.
NO THE RULES ARE THE SAME!, of coarse they are worded differently. The game clock shouldn't have started until the touching of the ball.

Did you see what happened in the Russia/Cuba quarter-final womens game at the Olympics in Sydney?

1.6 seconds left on the game clock, Russia with the ball under their hoop with the availability to run the baseline. ('their hoop' in FIBA is the one that is being defended, NFHS and NCAA this would be 'the oppenents hoop'), Russia tries a long pass up the court for a last second shot, the pass is completed and Russia gets a good shot attempt, there is a rebound, Russia gets a second shot and then a third. All of a sudden i see the trail official,(two person in the olympics) waving off the shot. The clock still showed 1.6 seconds.

THE TIME KEEPER FORGOT TO START THE CLOCK !!!!

The trail official concluded that no time remained, and ended the game. The trail offical was from Canada and works in the Vanouver Association. The assignor at the olympics concluded that he had done a correct thing. No one wanted to see a repeat of 1972.
Reply With Quote