Team catches & shoots w/ .3 left to win in WV Tournament

[Raymond]

The rule (5-2 Art 5) says "When play is resumed with a throw-in or free throw and three-tenths (.3) of a second or less remains on the clock, a player may not gain control of the ball and try for a field goal. In this situation only a tap could score."

There is no mention of what the time may actually be. Let's quit trying to twist this, the officials kicked a rule, pure and simple. Same thing happened in a play-off game in Northern Virginia 2-3 seasons ago.

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by justacoach

Not unless they have approved a specific variance from FED rules.

Rule 5, Section 4 Article 2

"The NFHS Basketball Rules Committee does not recognize protests. "

That would be why I asked the question...I know Washington State has that variance. I am wondering if WV does???

[Stat-Man]

Originally Posted by frezer11

If you're in a 0.3 situation and there is a timeout, hopefully as a crew you have a brief discussion to be on the same page. Would anyone consider communicating with coaches during this timeout about the rule? I wouldn't, in the camp of they should know the rule, but I'm curious to see what others might think.

I agree with the sentiment of others posting before me: the crew should get together to be sure everyone knows the rule and what scenarios could happen. But, I wouldn't tell the coaches.

[BillyMac]

From an upcoming article I'm writing for a magazine. It's been twenty-eight years and I'm sure that some Forum young'uns don't know the background of the rule.

The Trent Tucker Rule disallows any regular shot to be taken on the court if the ball is put into play with three-tenths of a second or less left in the period. The rule was born out of a game between the New York Knicks and the Chicago Bulls on January 15, 1990 at Madison Square Garden. The game was tied at 106 with one-tenth of a second left in regulation and the Knicks in possession. During a timeout called by the Knicks, both teams prepared for what was seen as the only possible way the Knicks could win in regulation: an alley-oop tapin by Patrick Ewing from an out of bounds pass. When play resumed, the Knicks player throwing the ball in, Mark Jackson, saw the alley-oop play get broken up. He proceeded to throw the ball inbounds to Trent Tucker, who was the only player open. Tucker then turned around and hit a three-point jump shot before the buzzer, giving the Knicks the win, 109–106. Replays showed that the clock was not started until Tucker's shot was already in midair. Afterward, everyone said a player could not catch, plant, spin, and release a shot so quickly. The NBA determined that you cannot catch and shoot in three-tenths of a second or under. All you can do is throw it at the rim and have someone tip it in.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Taking a closed book test is not going to solve that problem if you ask questions about the diameter of the division line instead of questions that actually could be faced in a game.

Peace

I'm scrambling for my books to see what the diameter of a division line should be!

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by frezer11

I don't think so. The wording, as quoted by you, is "three-tenths (.3) of a second or less remaining on the clock." While the actual time might be more than 0.3 (0.39), the rule states 0.3 or less remaining on the clock. That means whatever the clock is displaying, not the tiny difference between what it displays and the actual time.

Haha, this is a funny discussion over such a minute difference. But I think the overall point is this: for this rule, all that matters is what is displayed, not what amount of time *might* remain.

The question then is what is "the clock"? What if the clock at the table shows 100ths while the clock on the wall doesn't? What if one clock on the wall shows it and another doesn't?

[SC Official]

This could’ve been avoided with a good pregame.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Slow down partner. Not necessarily. The game might not be over. What else can happen in 0.3 seconds other than a tip? How about a catch and a ...

The NCAAW rule is better here -- as soon as the ball is caught, the game is over.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

The NCAAW rule is better here -- as soon as the ball is caught, the game is over.

You didn't answer the fill in the blank question (when I certainly know that you can). Is this one of those fisherman metaphor things?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

I’m with you there. But if the closed book test contains questions about rules that legitimately matter (i.e. we can all dispense with multiple foul scenarios), we might move the needle a little.

Yeah, if they ask the right questions. And you are not going to be able to ask all the possibilities, but testing is one of the biggest jokes in officiating. We act like if they test you that means you know the rules. You only know the questions they ask you. If they never ask you about what can happen on .3, then does that mean you will not ever learn the rule? Rules knowledge comes with experience, study and talking with several officials over time. And sometimes you learn the rule when you totally screw it up.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by CJP

We specifically talked about a catch and a shot. Any other hypothetical situation is irrelevant.

Originally Posted by CJP

... that if they catch and shoot a 3 that we will wave it off and the game is over.

The statement was made that if there is a catch that the game is over.

Sounds pretty simple. It's not that simple. The game might not be over under at least one hypothetical, but very possible (what often happens to players in the act of shooting), circumstance. I wouldn't nod to the table, and run out of the gym, if something else happened in addition to the catch and shoot.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

The Trent Tucker Rule disallows any regular shot to be taken on the court if the ball is put into play with three-tenths of a second or less left in the period. The rule was born out of a game between the New York Knicks and the Chicago Bulls on January 15, 1990 at Madison Square Garden. The game was tied at 106 with one-tenth of a second left in regulation and the Knicks in possession. During a timeout called by the Knicks, both teams prepared for what was seen as the only possible way the Knicks could win in regulation: an alley-oop tapin by Patrick Ewing from an out of bounds pass. When play resumed, the Knicks player throwing the ball in, Mark Jackson, saw the alley-oop play get broken up. He proceeded to throw the ball inbounds to Trent Tucker, who was the only player open. Tucker then turned around and hit a three-point jump shot before the buzzer, giving the Knicks the win, 109–106. Replays showed that the clock was not started until Tucker's shot was already in midair. Afterward, everyone said a player could not catch, plant, spin, and release a shot so quickly. The NBA determined that you cannot catch and shoot in three-tenths of a second or under. All you can do is throw it at the rim and have someone tip it in.

As a thirty-plus year retired science teacher, I know the value of context in understanding, and remember things.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I'm scrambling for my books to see what the diameter of a division line should be!

If you take a closed book test, you might not know the answer.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I'm scrambling for my books to see what the diameter of a division line should be!

Not fair. Trick question.

The division line isn't a circle and doesn't have a diameter, it has a length, and a width.

[CJP]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

The statement was made that if there is a catch and that the game is over.

Sounds pretty simple. It's not that simple. The game might not be over under at least one hypothetical, but very possible (what often happens to players in the act of shooting), circumstance. I wouldn't nod to the table, and run out of the gym, if something else happened in addition to the catch and shoot.

Yeah well we only had a short amount of time for a brief discussion. Having just a catch was not part of our discussion. I didn't think it was necessary to have a "pre-game" discussion during the time-out. Forgive me if I didn't mention the other hypothetical situations but I thought we covered the most important one.