UK vs Louisville--Shot Clock Violation in Final Minute-Reset Clock?

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I like that NBA rule too, but I won't be using it any HS or college games that I work because it isn't applicable to those levels. If the NCAA, NFHS, or CIF adopted this ruling, then I would be happy to apply it.

Nevada, the NBA (as related by APG) and NCAA ruling are different if the shot-clock try is attempted prior to the shot-clock expiring. In NCAA if a player from Team A attempts a try and the shot-clock expires, team A has satisfied half of the requirement (i.e., attempting a shot-clock try). That's why the game clock isn't reset.

Meantime, to speak to one of your earlier comments:

Just as if a travel were to occur at 13.1 seconds remaining and the official whistles for it at 12.7, the correct time for the game clock would be 12.7, not the time of the violation.

First, that's a case of the official's reaction time. There's always a bit of a lag time between what we see on the court and how fast we react. However, in the case of a shot-clock violation where the infraction is not attempting the try we know that infraction took place 30 (or 35) seconds after the possession began. Let's adjust your earlier scenario: In NF, an official calls a travel with 13.1 on the game clock but the clock isn't stopped until 12.7. If any of the officials knows there was 13.1 on the game clock when the whistle blew they're allowed - by rule - to put that time back on the clock. NF 5.10.1 situation C is the closest thing I can find to this situation:

5.10.1 SITUATION C:

As the official calls a three-second lane violation, he/she properly sounds the whistle and gives the signal to stop the clock. While doing this, the official is able to see the exact time remaining in the fourth quarter. The clock shows five seconds remaining. The timer stops the clock: (a) at five seconds; (b) at four seconds; (c) at three seconds; or (d) the time runs out completely.

RULING: No correction is needed in (a). In (b), (c) and (d), the referee will order five seconds put on the clock.

Again, it's a case of definite knowledge. Yes, I know 5-10 deals with "timing errors" but scenario B in the case play doesn't necessarily have to be a mistake/error. The violation might have taken place at 5.1 on a clock which doesn't show tenths of seconds but the clock isn't stopped until 4.9. All that matters is we saw the clock at one number when we blew our whistle and it ticked down to another. In the "no shot-clock try" scenario we know when the violation takes effect so that's definite knowledge.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

Nevada, the NBA (as related by APG) and NCAA ruling are different if the shot-clock try is attempted prior to the shot-clock expiring. In NCAA if a player from Team A attempts a try and the shot-clock expires, team A has satisfied half of the requirement (i.e., attempting a shot-clock try). That's why the game clock isn't reset.

I'm aware of that. I never said that the two situations were the same. I merely commented that I like the NBA rule of restoring the time even when the horn sounds while the try is in flight and subsequently fails to strike the ring. I actually like that better than the NCAA way of doing it which is to not restore the time prior to the whistle.
In fact, that is basically my point in this entire thread. The officials need to follow the rules for the level which they are working. One wouldn't use the NBA method at the NCAA level or vice versa. However, some posters on here are advocating using these higher level rules at the high school level. Since all HS shot clock rules are set by the various states or leagues within those states, there is no rule basis for doing that unless these governing authorities publish such. The CIF has not done that.

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

Meantime, to speak to one of your earlier comments:

First, that's a case of the official's reaction time. There's always a bit of a lag time between what we see on the court and how fast we react.

Yep, that's true and that time cannot be restored BY RULE at the NFHS level.

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

However, in the case of a shot-clock violation where the infraction is not attempting the try we know that infraction took place 30 (or 35) seconds after the possession began. Let's adjust your earlier scenario: In NF, an official calls a travel with 13.1 on the game clock but the clock isn't stopped until 12.7. If any of the officials knows there was 13.1 on the game clock when the whistle blew they're allowed - by rule - to put that time back on the clock. NF 5.10.1 situation C is the closest thing I can find to this situation:

Yep, the time WHEN THE WHISTLE BLEW is what the NFHS rules require us to use. That's what I've been saying the whole time.

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

Again, it's a case of definite knowledge. Yes, I know 5-10 deals with "timing errors" but scenario B in the case play doesn't necessarily have to be a mistake/error. The violation might have taken place at 5.1 on a clock which doesn't show tenths of seconds but the clock isn't stopped until 4.9. All that matters is we saw the clock at one number when we blew our whistle and it ticked down to another. In the "no shot-clock try" scenario we know when the violation takes effect so that's definite knowledge.

You totally missed the boat. Definite knowledge of when the violation occurred has nothing to do with this. The only thing which matters is knowledge of when the whistle blew. It doesn't matter if the official was slow making the call. The official has absolutely no rule basis in California (CIF modifications) for restoring time to the point of the violation. Per the CIF shot clock rule that I cited previously, the official and timer are required to go with what the clock said when the whistle blew. There is no CIF rule instructing or permitting the official to use the time at which the violation occurred and the shot clock horn sounded. In fact, the CIF document clearly says that the whistle controls the situation and stops play.
Other states or leagues may have a different ruling, which is fine, and officials working there should follow those instructions. My only point in this thread has been that restoring time to when the horn sounded would be incorrect under CIF rules. I don't see how you or anyone else can disagree with that when I cited the rule.

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

The official has absolutely no rule basis in California (CIF modifications) for restoring time to the point of the violation. Per the CIF shot clock rule that I cited previously, the official and timer are required to go with what the clock said when the whistle blew. There is no CIF rule instructing or permitting the official to use the time at which the violation occurred and the shot clock horn sounded. In fact, the CIF document clearly says that the whistle controls the situation and stops play.

Obviously we're going to have to agree to disagree. I disagree because the CIF rule statement appears to have been written with the intent of not having officials mess with the clock when the shot clock expires while a try is in flight. I don't think that CIF intended to supersede NFHS timing correction protocol for a violation that occurs before a try is in flight.

Some Supreme Court justices believe in factoring legislative intent into their rulings, and others rely solely on the language of the statute itself. Ultimately, there's a majority ruling and we all move on.

Likewise, you and I are in opposite camps on this issue as it relates to the intent of the CIF modification. I'd like to see CIF issue an interpretation to clear it up. And then we can all move on.

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

Obviously we're going to have to agree to disagree. I disagree because the CIF rule statement appears to have been written with the intent of not having officials mess with the clock when the shot clock expires while a try is in flight. I don't think that CIF intended to supersede NFHS timing correction protocol for a violation that occurs before a try is in flight.

Some Supreme Court justices believe in factoring legislative intent into their rulings, and others rely solely on the language of the statute itself. Ultimately, there's a majority ruling and we all move on.

Likewise, you and I are in opposite camps on this issue as it relates to the intent of the CIF modification. I'd like to see CIF issue an interpretation to clear it up. And then we can all move on.

Just to add to this (though I'm nerdy enough that I have reached out to CIF), I took this from the organization's online constitution and bylaws:

ARTICLE 16
BASKETBALL
1600. GIRLS MODIFICATION
The National Federation Basketball Rules shall be modified for girls' basketball as follows:

A. Utilization of 30-second shot clock.
B. No 10-second rule in backcourt.
C. Utilization of 5 second count for holding the ball only.

1601. BOYS MODIFICATION
The National Federation Basketball Rules shall be modified for boys' basketball as follows:

A. Utilization of a 35-second shot clock.

If an organization uses the NCAA (or in the case of boys, the old NCAA) shot-clock rule why wouldn't it also use the interpretations that go along with that rule -- other than those it specifically wants to leave out? NF doesn't have a shot-clock rule so there has to be something to cover specific situations. In my NY GV games there's no question of intent because it's laid out in our bylaws that we use modified NCAAW's rules and the modifications are spelled out. Using the NCAA rule and not using the NCAA interp would appear to be a case of only taking half the rule.

Again, I've reached out to CIF. Hopefully I'll hear back soon.

[Nevadaref]

Please go to page 2 of that same document and read this part:
"
CIF Basketball Rule Modification
Guidelines
Shot Clock and Closely Guarded
The rules governing the shot clock for high school basketball are the [sic] similar to those used in
the NCAA
men and women’s games. The Girls closely guarded modifications are the same as those used in the
NCAA women’s games.
1.
Utilization
of 30
-
second shot clock
for Girls and 35 seconds for Boys games"

Notice that the shot clock rules are "similar" to the NCAA rules, while the girls closely-guarded rules are the "same." That should answer your question as to why they don't match the NCAA rules.

Who did you attempt to contact from the CIF? I know the new basketball rules interpreter quite well.