time to remove from the clock

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by bbman

Here's what happened;
2.3 sec on game clock, offensive player tries to i/b pass, but pass is immediately blocked back oob (no time taken off clock). Tries again, same results. Again, no time has run off clock.
Do nothing with the time left on clock?

Basically, no. If you don't have a count, you can't do anything.

That said, there is no reason you can't have a count in the closing seconds of a game. In fact, it is good game management to count everything in the closing seconds for this very reason. Don't go slinging your arm around when there is no count required by rule. Only the "official" counts should be visible. But, have a count in your head for everything at the end of a game...then you'll be able to make adjustments (by rule) when they are needed.

[ODog]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Don't go slinging your arm around when there is no count required by rule. Only the "official" counts should be visible. But, have a count in your head for everything at the end of a game...then you'll be able to make adjustments (by rule) when they are needed.

I agree with the sentiment about not slinging your arm around willy-nilly when it isn't necessary, but in the age of video and officials needing to increasingly be able to "justify" their decisions, I'd make any count (required or otherwise) visible in situations like these.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by ODog

I agree with the sentiment about not slinging your arm around willy-nilly when it isn't necessary, but in the age of video and officials needing to increasingly be able to "justify" their decisions, I'd make any count (required or otherwise) visible in situations like these.

The fact that any time I take off would match the real time will be the proof. They can put a stopwatch to it and verify it if they want and I'll be pretty close.

[HokiePaul]

I think this discussion comes up every year. From an interpretation several years back (2009-2010 NFHS Basketball Rules Interpretations) it was suggested that officials make some allowance for time off the clock on a legal touch.

I think the consensus is that in the case you describe, no time comes off of the clock as you don't have definative knowledge. However, I think there are some who would argue that removing "tenths of a second" for the touch is supported in the case book. The official has definitive knowledge that more than 0.0 seconds should have run off the clock if the ball was legally batted out by the defense.

---
In (c), the official may put the correct time on the clock, but must make some allowance for the touching by A1 -- likely 10ths of a second, if displayed. The ball is put in play nearest to where it was located when the stoppage occurred to correct the timing mistake. A "do over" is not permitted in (c), since the throw-in had ended. (4-36; 5-10-1)
---

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by HokiePaul

... (2009-2010 NFHS Basketball Rules Interpretations)... (c), the official may put the correct time on the clock, but must make some allowance for the touching by A1 -- likely 10ths of a second, if displayed. ... The ball is put in play nearest to where it was located when the stoppage occurred to correct the timing mistake. A "do over" is not permitted in (c), since the throw-in had ended. (4-36; 5-10-1)

Full context:

2009-2010 NFHS Basketball Rules Interpretations

SITUATION 11: Team B scores a goal to take the lead by one point. A1 immediately requests and is granted a timeout with three seconds remaining in the fourth quarter. Following the time-out, Team A is awarded the ball for a throw-in from anywhere along the end line. A1 passes the ball to A2, who is also outside the boundary; A2 passes the ball to A1 who is inbounds and running the length of the court. The timer mistakenly starts the clock when A2 touches A1’s pass while standing outside the boundary. An official notices the clock starting on A2’s touch (a), before A2 releases the throw-in pass to A1, (b), while A2’s throw-in pass is in flight to A1, or (c), as soon as A1 catches the throw-in pass. RULING: This is an obvious timing mistake and may be corrected. In (a) and (b), the official shall blow the whistle, stop play and direct the timer to put three seconds on the game clock. Since the throw-in had not ended, play is resumed with a Team A throw-in from anywhere along the end line. In (c), the official may put the correct time on the clock, but must make some allowance for the touching by A1 – likely 10ths of a second, if displayed. The ball is put in play nearest to where it was located when the stoppage occurred to correct the timing mistake. A “do over” is not permitted in (c), since the throw-in had ended. (4-36; 5-10-1)

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by HokiePaul

I think this discussion comes up every year. From an interpretation several years back (2009-2010 NFHS Basketball Rules Interpretations) it was suggested that officials make some allowance for time off the clock on a legal touch.

I think the consensus is that in the case you describe, no time comes off of the clock as you don't have definative knowledge. However, I think there are some who would argue that removing "tenths of a second" for the touch is supported in the case book. The official has definitive knowledge that more than 0.0 seconds should have run off the clock if the ball was legally batted out by the defense.

---
In (c), the official may put the correct time on the clock, but must make some allowance for the touching by A1 -- likely 10ths of a second, if displayed. The ball is put in play nearest to where it was located when the stoppage occurred to correct the timing mistake. A "do over" is not permitted in (c), since the throw-in had ended. (4-36; 5-10-1)
---

You're right, it does come up every year. And I hate this '09-'10 interpretation because if it was so important (and certainly the kinds of issues presented in both the interp and the OP are entirely plausible and common), the NFHS would figure out a way to fit it into the case book. I can think of plenty far more useless case plays in the case book that could be removed to make room.

So my deduction is that the NFHS probably regrets creating this interp in the first place. The subjectivity of "likely tenths of a second" is contrary to the objective standard of "definite knowledge."

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

You're right, it does come up every year. And I hate this '09-'10 interpretation because if it was so important (and certainly the kinds of issues presented in both the interp and the OP are entirely plausible and common), the NFHS would figure out a way to fit it into the case book. I can think of plenty far more useless case plays in the case book that could be removed to make room.

So my deduction is that the NFHS probably regrets creating this interp in the first place. The subjectivity of "likely tenths of a second" is contrary to the objective standard of "definite knowledge."

Then they should re-issue the interp with "do not take any time off" -- I seem to recall some changes like that (on different issues) in the past -- but I 'm not going to go looking for them.

I work with a women's college official (also one of my assignors) who absolutely insists on taking off .3 seconds in this situation where the ball was touched out of bounds and no time came off.

I have never taken time off arbitrarily like that but I am considering starting to do so. It seems like the right thing to do, and is not explicitly outlawed by rule.