Ten Seconds - Revisited

[bob jenkins]

On the subject of "when does the count start?":

1) Someone posted that he was going to ask his state interpreter, who is also on the rules committee. Any results on that?

2) Some have asked for references. Referee Magazine,in the "Ask Us" column has discussed this issue. I know, it's not the NFHS, and RefMag does make some mistakes, but it's better than nothing (IMHO). Also, I (personally) wouldn't use whether other officials start the count as the guideline here. It's rare enough that there's any real difference in the count, most of us are creatures of habit and this habit hasn't been ingrained, it's often "exciting" enough that we forget to count, and some of us just don't know the rule.

Anyhow, here are two plays from December, 1998 (so the references might be a little off, especially those for NCAA):

Play 1: Federation and NCAA men's rules. A1 is dribbling in the frontcourt when B1 bats the ball into the backcourt. The ball bounces a few times in the backcourt before A1 retrieves it. When does the 10-second backcourt count begin?

Ruling 1: The batting by B1 does not chage the team status of the ball; team A is still in team posession. Since team A is in continuus control during a loose ball, the count begins when the ball achieved backcourt status by bouncing in the backcourt. Editor's note: There is no 10-second backcourt restriction in NCAA women's games. (Fed 4-12-4;9-8;NCAA 4-7b, 9-9)

Play 2: Federation and NCAA rules. A2 is dribbling the ball in the backcourt. A2 ends the dribble and passes the ball toward A3. The ball instead strikes the leg of B3, who is standing in the frontcourt. The ball then deflects into the backcourt where it is recovered by A2. Did the 10-second count end when the ball was touched in the frontcourt or does the count continue until there is control in the frontcourt?

Ruling 2: When the ball struk B3 in the frontcourt, the ball achieved frontcourt status, thus terminating the 10-second count. When the ball deflects into the backcourt, a new 10-second count begins. The fact that team A retained team control during the entire sequence is of no consequence. Federation and NCAA rules agree. (Fed 4-4-2, 9-7; NCAA 4-7b, 9-11)

[Mark Padgett]

Bob - thanks for the great research. That's what some of us have been saying all along.

BTW - I usually use my old copies of Referee to wrap fish

[Glenn Lampman]

I agree that it is not THAT important as to when to start the count as it is to remember to start the count. I agree on referee mag also, it has subjects that invoke a lot of discussion but I would NOT use it as gospel. That is what the NF and NCAA interpretors are for!!

[mick]

Good find Bob! Thanks.
mick

[Dennis Flannery]

After talking to my states rules interputer (ca) ....I am sticking to what I said earlier...The 10 second count does not start, until a player gains control of the ball again. The Ca state rules interputer said that yes there is Team control per say, but that until a player secures control of the ball there should be no count. I hope that everyone out there ask jis/her local rules interputer about this, to see what they say.

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by Dennis Flannery
The Ca state rules interputer said that yes there is Team control per say, but that until a player secures control of the ball there should be no count.

Can the CA State Rules Interpreter give us a rule reference so that we may be as sure as he is or is this just a gut feeling that he has?

What rule can he reference that requires player control to start a 10 second count when team control already exist?

For Bob- I haven't had a chance to speak to Mr. Knox yet as our state rules clinic is not until the 12th. But I'll see if I can email him and get his interpretation.

[JRutledge]

Really I feel that the job of officials is to be consistent. If you feel that you should start a count when the ball touches the midcourt line, then do that. If you feel that a player should go back and get the ball or at least touch the ball, then do that. I really do not care, because either way I feel that you should do what makes you happy. It is not different to other rules in the rulebook and the use of common sense. It really is a silly argument either way and for those that get your panties all bunched up because we might have different views really need to grow up.

[rainmaker]

Rutledge --

I'm new, but I have learned this concept: "Don't call it if you don't see it." I can't see your shorts, whether they are bunched or not, so I'm not callin' it! Could you please extend the rest of us the same courtesy?

Thanks, juulie

[Brian Watson]

This situation outlines one of the sticky issues with the NFHS. They do not interpret a number of the rules. They leave that up to the state associations. So, in some states this will be a diffeent call than in others. Personally, I think the count should not start until the player touches the ball again. If I was the state interpreter, this is how our state would make the call. I think everyone should check with their state to see how they want it called.

[Hawks Coach]

I think this is illustrative of the difficulty of interpreting rules, in games, in law, etc. There are so many different permutations of real-life situations that any governing body will have trouble thinking of every possible one and providing a formal interpretation. My bet is that this is something that hasn't been raised to many state rules interpreters and they will give an interpretation based on their best sense of the letter and the spirit of the rules, and that we will see the same differences from state to state that we have seen on this board in the previous thread. Since most associations will probably never see this question raised, it leaves it to the ref on the floor to come up with a consistent application of the rules to the best of his or her ability.

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by Mark Padgett
Bob - thanks for the great research. That's what some of us have been saying all along.

BTW - I usually use my old copies of Referee to wrap fish

Hey Mark, doesn't this piss off the fish?

[Bradley Batt]

My question is this: How often does this play happen to you guys???

[mick]

Originally posted by Bradley Batt
My question is this: How often does this play happen to you guys???

You don't wanna come out and play?
We're still awaiting your interp.
mick

[JRutledge]

I do see that some people get very upset because we have an obvious confusion based on the rule. As I have said, nobody is right and nobody is wrong. Because there are people calling people names over a silly rule that is not better defined in the casebook, people are making into a life or death discussion. I do see that, and I have the right to tell you and anyone else to grow the hell up because we seem to disagree. I do not know where you are from, but all the associations that I belong to, not one night was there not a disagreement about a rule, a mechanic or a philosophy. But you want to know something, nobody got personal or name called, they just disagreed. So I think it is sad that the last post was closed because people are more concerned about being right than just being confident in what they feel. I do 4 sports and I have not run into one person that did not agree on all the rules with me or me with them on all the rules and mechanics. This is why they have editorial revisions every year. If everything was 100% clear, they would have no need.

I do know one thing, I see that!! And I do not back down from my original statement. If something else offended you then say that, but I stand by my comment!!!

Originally posted by rainmaker
Rutledge --

I'm new, but I have learned this concept: "Don't call it if you don't see it." I can't see your shorts, whether they are bunched or not, so I'm not callin' it! Could you please extend the rest of us the same courtesy?

Thanks, juulie

[Mark Padgett]

Originally posted by Dan_ref

Hey Mark, doesn't this piss off the fish?

If they complain too much, I give them a T.