Kicking and clock

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by billyu2

... so the ball becomes dead when the try is made or when apparent it is missed. In which case, the clock never should have started as well. The whistle in both cases stopped any play from continuing but did not cause the ball to become dead, it already was dead. That seems to be supported quite well by Rule Fundmental #16.

This part is all false and that is why you reach the wrong conclusion.
No rule makes the ball dead in the FT situation. There is no violation or foul. The ball isn't dead until the official sounds the whistle. Everything before then is timed.
For the illegal touch on the throw-in, we have a violation that makes the ball dead and a rule stating that the clock does not start. We also have an NFHS clarification from a few years ago instructing the officials that no time comes off on this infraction.
Two totally different plays which you cannot equate.

[billyu2]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

This part is all false and that is why you reach the wrong conclusion.
No rule makes the ball dead in the FT situation. There is no violation or foul. The ball isn't dead until the official sounds the whistle. Everything before then is timed.
For the illegal touch on the throw-in, we have a violation that makes the ball dead and a rule stating that the clock does not start. We also have an NFHS clarification from a few years ago instructing the officials that no time comes off on this infraction.
Two totally different plays which you cannot equate.

Ah, okay. I am interpreting the play by the incorrect conditions that the official created by saying 2 shots. Thanks. On the other hand, and I appreciate your patience, you are saying the ball remains live on the missed free throw and is rebounded or ends up in the hands of a player B: meaning the ball has been touched, the clock starts, and...player and team control has been established, correct? Play is then immediately ruled dead. The casebook says since the error put one team at a disadvantage the solution is to resume by the AP. Therefore, it appears the legal touching and possession of the live ball by Team B has been nullified by the casebook ruling. If this is true, wouldn't it stand to reason that the clock should be reset? I would like to be convinced one way or the other. Right now I am not sure but I am still leaning toward resetting the clock. Appreciate all opinions.

[Nevadaref]

If the Case Book said to reset the clock in this specific situation then you could. However, it doesn't. Compare this with the Case Book play titled "A specific unsporting act" 10.1.8, which directly states to put consumed time back on the clock.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

If the Case Book said to reset the clock in this specific situation then you could. However, it doesn't. Compare this with the Case Book play titled "A specific unsporting act" 10.1.8, which directly states to put consumed time back on the clock.

10.1.8 SITUATION: Immediately following a goal or free throw by Team A, A1
inbounds the ball to A2 and A2 subsequently throws the ball through A’s basket.
RULING: The following procedure has been adopted to handle this specific situation
if it is recognized before the opponents gain control or before the next
throw-in begins: (a) charge Team A with an unsporting technical foul; (b) assess
a delay-of-game warning for interfering with the ball after a goal; (c) cancel the
field goal; (d) cancel any common foul(s) committed and any non-flagrant foul
against A2 in the act of shooting; and (e) put “consumed” time back on the clock.
COMMENT: If there is no doubt the throw-in was a result of confusion, the entire
procedure would be followed except no unsporting team technical foul would be
charged. A team technical would be assessed if the team had received a previous
delay warning. This procedure shall not be used in any other throw-in situation in
which an official administers the throw-in and a mistake allows the wrong team
to inbound the ball. (4-47-3; 7-6-6; 10-1-5d)