time to remove from the clock
 

Little help please. I'm having a little trouble understanding how much time to remove from the clock when it's not properly started in different situations. What part of the rule book might I find these answers?

Thanks in advance.

You do not remove time from the clock unless you have positive knowledge of how much should be removed (like... referee was at 6 in a 10-second count... you can remove the 6).

Try Rule 5-10.

and look at the case book plays for examples.

And for that matter, you remove the 6 even if the ball crossed into the frontcourt for some unknown number of seconds after the official stopped counting when the ball reached frontcourt.

Great point.

Step 1 = know how much time there was when the clock was stopped. Game awareness is a force multiplier.

Step 2 = Don't guess once you've noticed that the clock didn't start. Blow the whistle, say "my time, my time.....clock did not start," and watch the timer sheepishly slouch in his chair.

Step 3 = If you and your partners had any counts since the ball was inbounded, sum them up and take that time off, but no more, even if "more" was a long time.

Step 4 = resume from the Point of Interruption.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

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?

Are the officials chopping in time on the touch?

Prior to the second occurrance did anyone remind the timer to start the clock on the first touch by a defender or offensive player?

If the action happened too fast to have a count, there isn't anything NFHS officials can do. In the NBA, 0.3 seconds will be deducted from the clock in such situations.

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.

Nope. But after the first one, I'd probably go check the timer to make sure he had a pulse. Might be a case of slow fingers, or maybe his console sucks. Or maybe he's just a homer trying to get away with one.

In any case, you don't have definite information relative to the time involved, so no change can be made.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

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.

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)
---

Let's Go To The Videotape ... ...
 

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)

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."