Found this Gem 3 seconds
 

Embedding is your friend
 

So everyone can see without hitting the link.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Fm6L5Gl2eHs" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

BTW, this is a horrible call and a total misunderstanding of the rule. Terrible.

Peace

I don't really get the technical foul call, either. I guess she was on the court (a bit).

Well without knowing what she/he said, I do not think any of us would know either way. I do not care where there are standing if their comments are over the top. But the call was very poor if 3 seconds was the actual call.

Peace

True. A coach doesn't have to raise their voice to get t'd up.

Three Seconds ...
 

The official appears to give the three second violation signal, and also states, loudly, "Three seconds".

https://tse4.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.M...=0&w=163&h=144

What was he thinking? I certainly don't know. Maybe he didn't see the first shot, and thought that the offensive players in the lane lane were passing the ball among themselves? Even if that were true it was still a quick three seconds. Maybe if the last shooter hadn't faked a shot (not moving immediately to try for goal), he wouldn't have called it?

Any way you look at it, I agree with JRutledge, it was a "horrible" call.

Looks like he whacked the assistant for standing up and making gestures.

HTBT for the T. Assistants can't stand. If that's where he draws his line, it's defendable. Especially if it's a big deal with the state and/or his assignor.

What preceded it is not so defendable. Montana. Same state that brought us the playoff game buzzer-beater-that-wasn't last year. Hmmm.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Looks like he counts to 3 the same way someone I know counts to 5.

Look at the game clock in the video. You can see the seconds on it.
The lay-up is missed at 53. The rebound is grabbed at 52. The next shot is released at 50. The whistle is blown and clock stopped at 49.

The violation call is clearly incorrect.

I wouldn't even have started such a count in this scenario. Can anyone here on the forum honestly say they would? A 3-second violation wouldn't even have entered my mind at this point.

Nice! [emoji6]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Mine neither. The point at which a 3-second violation enters my mind is usually about 3 seconds after I begin to contemplate that perhaps more than 3 seconds have elapsed.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well, you do have to give him some credit...it was in his primary. ;)

ROFLMTO!!

MTD, Sr.

I have not called a three seconds violation in 50 years and I stated officiating in 1971.

MTD, Sr.

Unless an offensive player is in the lane and there's nothing going on anywhere near him, and there's nothing else for me to monitor, a three-second violation never comes to mind.

Had two 3-second violations in my last college game. One of them was a double whistle.

They do occur.

I've called two this season myself. They tend to call themselves.

My son played in a tournament last week with similar timing issues. (IMHO, the two man team was out of its depth, at least trying to do the game two-man.). But in addition to a few three second calls (at least one was very quick following a shot), we were graced with a 10 second backcourt call (while the shot clock only showed 9 seconds had run), a five second closely-guarded call when no one else in the gym thought the casual dribbler was being closely guarded by the leisurely defender, and the first time I've ever seen a 10 second call on a FT in a high school game (I wasn't counting, but it seemed quick to me, and was whistled as the ball left the shooters hand). At least they were consistent with quick counts....

Maybe Nessie Is Real ???
 

So it does exist. I thought that this was a myth, or a hoax.

https://tse1.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.M...=0&w=279&h=157

Probably a new official/crew as you stated. In my first couple of years, I was "that official" who would look for calls like this, almost as if to demonstrate that I knew a bunch of rules.

Over time I learned how to put rules in context. If there's a rare or unusual violation to call, it finds me. I don't go looking for it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not speaking to your instance in particular, but unless the shot-clock operator is amazing (and at the HS level or below, that's a toss up at best, getting worse as the level drops), you cannot use the shot clock as any sort of barometer for a 10-second call, nor should you.

Again, not speaking to your example in particular, since these are HTBT situations, but the "attitudes" of the players (casual, leisurely, etc.) are never relevant when it comes to violations. Hell, if LGP was established and the defender remained within 6 feet, both players could turn their backs to each other in indifference and 5 seconds could still be called.

Something else that's never relevant: What "everyone else in the gym" thinks. This is probably why more and more coaches, fans and parents are reportedly losing their minds on a regular basis. Because their views on all calls/non-calls are always irrelevant, more often than not invalid and absolutely never taken into consideration.

I'd fix the shot clock well before calling a 10 second violation. No way I'm going to have a situation where the shot clock only shows 9 seconds have come off and I'm calling a violation.

If I'm at 2 on my count in the back court and the shot clock hasn't been reset, I'm stopping the game and having them fix it.

I agree 100% with that though, and understand what you're saying about the shot clock issue, too. But if I'm working a game with a shot clock, I'm going to make sure it is working properly and the operator is consistent.

Of course. We're in agreement on all fronts. And I'm also agreeing with the speculation that the officials in So Cal's post likely were inexperienced and/or trigger happy.

But his post seems to come from a fan's perspective, with a fan's concept of the rules, so it's only fair someone stands up for these boor bastards (:p) and plays devil's advocate.

Yes, thank god cell phones didn't capture video when I was starting out... everybody has to start somewhere...

[QUOTE=ODog;996006]Again, not speaking to your example in particular, since these are HTBT situations, but the "attitudes" of the players (casual, leisurely, etc.) are never relevant when it comes to violations. Hell, if LGP was established and the defender remained within 6 feet, both players could turn their backs to each other in indifference and 5 seconds could still be called.


Are we sure about this? It is called "closely guarded" and not "closely located." I seem to recall a Case Book play that addresses this, unfortunately, I'm at a New Years Party, and don't have my books.

[QUOTE=Rob1968;996012]SITUATION 12: A1 is holding the ball in her/his frontcourt. B1 moves to within 6 feet and stands and faces A1. The official does not apply the closely guarded rule because B1 is not playing aggressively. RULING: The official is incorrectly applying the closely guarded rule. The amount of movement or the actual body movement of B1 is irrelevant. (Rule 4-10)

[QUOTE=bob jenkins;996025]Thanks, Bob. The above noted statements and the requirement that during a closely guarded situation, the distance is measured from the front foot/feet of the opponent to the front foot/feet of the ball handler, seem to be contradictory. A defender standing with his back to the ball handler doesn't seem to be guarding the ball handler. And a mental image of a defender standing with his back toward the ball handler, who is also facing away from the defender, doesn't seem to fit the concept of guarding.
But, it's not the first time that a statement from the NFHS seems strange.

If you receive a backcourt throw-in under the basket, and I have two feet down and am facing you from under the other basket, 80-90 feet away, I am guarding you ... not closely guarding you, but guarding you nonetheless.

It doesn't take much!

Ballhandlers routinely have their backs to defenders, so that should cause no confusion. And while it may seem strange/rare to have the defender also facing the other direction, it's not like that changes the distance you'd measure between the front of the players' feet (other than perhaps a few inches).

Am I saying I'd call this? Probably not. Am I saying it's a good look? Definitely not. But don't let fan myths or personal bias cloud your understanding of the actual rules of the game.

A mental image of a player at halfcourt with his back to the basket, tossing the ball over his head toward the goal doesn't seem to fit the concept of a try, but it can easily be judged a try nonetheless ...

Just for the sake of conversation, if all five of the opponents are facing the ball handler, from whatever distances, who is guarding whom?:)

I gave those up when I started officiating in 1968.:)

Not Required To Continue Facing The Opponent ...
 

I certainly agree that the clock is not THE barometer -- in this case, the shot clock was consistent with my perception that it was not 10 and with other quick counts. (''Twas against the other team, btw.)

Thanks for the lecture, I really didn't know that refs don't make calls based on what fans think. Glad you could clarify. :rolleyes: I didn't think it was within 6 ft -- but it would have been a non event in my mind if it weren't for the collection of seemingly quick counts. (Whether they are technically core t or. It, I don't recall seeing a five second call made in favor of a passive defender at five and a half feet before.)

Undoubtedly I have a fan's perspective -- as I said, it was my son's game. But I won't agree to fan's perspective of the rules, which I think would be obvious from my posts in general. The reason I come here isn't to trash refs, but because I like knowing the actual rules (though I have to be judicious about explaining the, other parents around me). I reffed BB (untrained except for reading the rule book) for middle school games in my youth, and may do it when my kid graduates -- currently I only do soccer and my marriage can't handle another sport, too....

The backcourt count was also in favor of my son's team. When I muttered "that wasn't 10 seconds, but we'll take it" while the other parents were cheering, a dad "explained" to me that the 10 second count starts before the shot clock (this was after a made basket) because it starts while the player is still throwing in the ball. :eek:

Different Strokes For Different Folks (Sly And The Family Stone) ...
 

Not specific to this thread, but different rule sets have different starting times for a ten second count. Some start the count when a player in the backcourt touches the ball, others (NFHS) start the count when a player in the backcourt controls the ball.

I can't speak in regard to when the shot clock starts, we don't use a shot clock for almost all Connecticut scholastic games. However, our Connecticut prep schools use hybrid NCAA/NFHS rules. In our prep school varsity games, during a throw-in, the shot clock starts when the ball is legally touched by any player. After a missed free throw/field goal, the shot clock starts when a player gains control. Officials use the shot clock to time for 10-second backcourt violation, however, when the shot clock is turned off, the official must use a visual count.