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

From the West Virginia State Girls Tournament.....wvmetronews.com

Cara Minor hit a game-winning two-point shot as time expired, lifting Class AA No. 1 North Marion over No. 8 Bluefield 56-54 in a dramatic girls basketball quarterfinal matchup.

The bucket came off an in-bounds with just .3 seconds on the clock...

There was some confusion as to whether the shot should count, though, and the rules were interpreted by the officials that a player could catch and shoot with 0.3 seconds on the clock.

According to NFHS rule 5-2.5, however, it states: “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.”

“To lose like that makes it harder,” said Bluefield coach Tony Mallamaci. “I’m not a time genius, but how you can hold the ball in your hand (and shoot) with 0.3 seconds left, I’m not gifted in that direction.

“They said (the officials) that you can catch and shoot with 0.3 (seconds on the clock),” Mallamaci said.

I'm curious what you all believe will happen with these officials. Will they lose future tournament games, or games in general?

EDIT: I re-read what I wrote earlier and it was just some cry-baby junk. Sorry.

Wow. That is an inexcusable error, if I'm being honest. I'd expect ANY varsity official to know that rule.

I worked a game recently where the home team was down 3 with 0.3 seconds remaining. The situation was a spot throw in from half court after a time-out. My partners and I got together during the time-out and discussed that if they catch and shoot a 3 that we will wave it off and the game is over. Of course, the home team comes out and beautifully executes a play to get the open 3 and they nailed it. Of course, home court timer advantage allowed the kid to catch the ball with his back turned to the basket, turn and shoot (ball going through the basket) all before the horn goes off. The crowd was very upset when we waived it off but it was the correct call. The coach asked why we did not count the basket and understood completely when we gave him an explanation.

Here is the article:

WV MetroNews – No. 1 North Marion hits buzzer-beater to escape Bluefield upset

I would vote in favor of never letting anyone on this crew officiate another post season game, ever.

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.

No. It's not my job to educate anybody on the rules. If the coach does not know the rule it's not my problem. He can rant and rave all he wants... I don't care. He's the one that looks like a total jackass, not me.

Absolutely discuss if you have the opportunity (don’t delay the game unnecessarily). Do not coach the coach. They have access to the same books we do.

Very disappointed for the avocation as a whole to hear of a rule being kicked like this, let alone at that level.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I agree, it is not our job. We briefly discussed telling the coach that only a tip can score in the scenario I shared earlier. Obviously, we decided against it.

What I have seen is the official administering the throw in loudly tell the player throwing in the ball they can only score on a tap. Pretty much loud enough that everyone on the floor can hear it. Coaches may hear it depending on how loud the gym is.

Here is the video...

<blockquote class="twitter-video" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">WHAT A FINISH! Minor puts off a shot off inbounds with .3 SECONDS on the clock to give North Marion Huskies a 56-54 win over Bluefield. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/wvgirlsbb?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#wvgir lsbb</a> <a href="https://t.co/RQqEBEzAvf">pic.twitter.com/RQqEBEzAvf</a></p>&mdash; Basketball Night (@Hoops_Roundup) <a href="https://twitter.com/Hoops_Roundup/status/971535770191384576?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 7, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Nothing surprises me anymore. I've heard of 5:00 OT being played in a playoff game.

Hate me all you want, but this is one that could most definitely be fixed.

Even worse! Now a team just used a TO and AFTER the TO you say this. Better to either say this to the coach before or not at all. You just wasted a team's TO and probably threw the inbounder, and anyone who heard you, into confusion.

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

The exams each year really need to be closed book in a monitored classroom. Then the buffoons who wouldn’t otherwise score better than 75% might actually commit some rules and case plays to memory, especially if they wanted to work post-season.

I’ll bet all three of these guys are the types who would tell you, “I’m not a rules guy, but....”

Judgment and mechanics are nice, but they don’t make you whole.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Those are the same people who think less of officials that know the rules thoroughly.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Awful. For not one of the three officials to know that rule is an embarrassment.

I think we are overreacting about this. This is a rule that should be known of course. But there are officials that do not know rules because they have never been put up against a situation to know the rule explicitly. It is bad, but should we be surprised at the high school level where all kinds of people do not know simple rules? High school officials honestly are on the lowest of the spectrum for accountability. For one most of our games never go into evaluating every call and you can be scratched for not talking to the coach in the right way, but not for messing up a technical foul sequence. I just do not know why we are so shocked by these situations. We have so many officials that go through the motions and never realize little things that might get them in big trouble and go around wondering why they are not in the big game slot.

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've worked with lots of college officials that don't know NFHS or NCAA rules but get by because of "game management," how they look, kissing ass, etc. I also work with a lot of officials who know the rules at an acceptable level but are horrible test takers-and in South Carolina that will doom you no matter how good you are at everything else.

It's not exclusively a high school thing to be bad on the rules.

And to clarify, "game management" is not a bad thing. But I think it's an overused camp speak term that is often used to justify "making s*it up" when you don't know or don't want to apply the rules.

I disagree wholeheartedly. This is a state quarterfinal game. Districts, Sectionals, and State officials are chosen work these games (at least they are in VA). There is absolutely no excuse for an R (or even the U2) to NOT KNOW THIS RULE. Heck the clown in the T emphatically counts it!!!!

If I were the coach, I would not have left that floor under my own power. Yes I do think the coach knew the rule based on where he has those girls defending!

I have met plenty of NCAA officials who's rules knowledge are very basic, especially for some common scenarios. However the bar for being a HS official is low.

And apparently this state does not have a review monitor for last second shots. Some do and I bet it would have helped in this case. Furthermore, there are 3 officials on the court. Was there a 4th alternate official at the table as there are in many state tournaments? If so, that official apparently thought it should count also.

Regardless of have/not have monitor .. the shot by rule doesn't count!

The article I saw said that the monitor cannot be used except in state championship game.

I did not say that college officials know the rules better. I said that HS officials are held to a much lower level of accountability. I have seen lower level college officials get suspended games because they miss a basic rule that the coach brings to the attention of the supervisor. I have seen basic rules missed in a high school game and no one ever said a word, but their fellow officials that happened to be at the game and told them what they did wrong directly.

I had a situation this year in a high school game where we misapplied a rule on technical fouls. We had a double T given and another player who came to the confrontation. I did not see the double T part or why the entire thing started. I just saw the second action. Now when we talked about what we were going to do, the action was treated like they were two separate situations and even a punch was thrown (which I did not see at all). We talked about it and it was clear that my partners at the time were very unclear on what the rule that applied and only a conversation in detail after the game brought more clarity that we did something wrong. We ended up ejecting two players from the same team and allowed a player that did some kind of fighting action to stay in the game. And this was basic. This was not a hard rule to figure out. None of us got in trouble, fired or suspended. It was even a joke with the assigner later when I worked with him because he did not realize I was on the game until we were about to work together when talking about the incident. It was a learning lesson for me as to how we get the information after the incident, but nothing happened in the long run from any level of the organization or state level.

And these are questions that are never asked in testing on the NF or state level. I know this year there were over 10 questions on the NF test that had questions about measurements of the ball, lines, net, or logos. Yep, that is making us better. :rolleyes:

Peace

OK, my state has all levels assigned at the state level. What does that mean if you do not know the rule of when a catch and shoot can be performed?

OK, the officials have left the floor and there is no mechanism to change the call. They cannot look at the monitor. And that still does not change the fact of what I said. The team that did the catch and shoot wins and we move on. Unless a lawsuit gets involved, this is going to stand.

Peace

The losing coach obviously knew the rule and must have told his players: you can see two of the red players waving off the basket as they ran towards their bench.

I would not put too much stock in the reaction of players, they always suggest a shot should not be counted when it should. But I think the coach did call a play that would not allow anything other than a tap to be shot.

Peace

I hear ya JRut .. just disappointing to get assigned a state game and screw the pooch like that. Many work long and hard and never get a state game.

Question...if you wave the shot off immediately there, and the coach is obviously upset, do you stay and give a quick explanation of the rule? Or just leave the court asap?

+1000

Does WV allow protests of games when a rule is set aside or misapplied???

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 didn't stop the GHSA.

The truth is the clock show .3 second, but it could have been .39 seconds. I had a clock show 0.0 and no horn on a foul call.

The clock probably had 0.09 seconds. less than .1 for my foul call, could have been 0.39 in this case.

So?

Hint: What does the rule say?

There is absolutely nothing in the rule book that allows for such an assumption.

Think About It ...
 

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 ...

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.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It was a tie game, wave it off and go to overtime

No

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

The rule book says: basically that you can't catch and shoot with "three-tenths (.3) of a second or less remaining on the clock."

As someone already pointed out, as the clock is ticking down, if they would show the hundredths, it would look like this:

.4
.39
.38
.37
.36
.35
.34
.33
.32
.31
.3
.29

When .3 is displayed on the clock, there is almost certainly more than .3 seconds "remaining on the clock". Thus, you could potentially count this basket per the rule book.

Is there is a case that says when the clock "displays", or "reads", or "shows" .3 or less, then you can't catch and shoot?

Because that game clock showing .3 almost certainly has more than .3 remaining on the clock, and the rule wouldn't apply. Would have to use your judgement if it was released on time.

I believe the NBA rule says can't catch and shoot with "less than three-tenths of a second left". Not less than or equal to, like the NFHS rule states. .3 seconds could be as much as .39999 repeating. That's why the 8 second violation isn't called when 16 shows but when 15 shows on the clock. Also, the reason the red light is the determining factor. A display of 0.0 is somewhere between 0.09999 repeating and 0.0.

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 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.

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

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.

Who’s Trent Tucker? And Why Is There A Rule Named After Him? ...
 

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.

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

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?

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

Fill In The Blank ...
 

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?

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

It's Not That Simple ...
 

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.

Oh, That Trent Tucker ...
 

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

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

Peace

Tricky, Tricky, Tricky ...
 

Not fair. Trick question.

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

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.

It is actually 0.2 seconds or less. In the NBA as in FIBA, you can catch and shoot with 0.3 seconds or more.

Can confirm for NBA ruleset.

Do tell me what the diameter of a straight line is, even if you use your book.

Correct for the current NBA rule, but what was it back in 1990 when it was originally created? BillyMac's story could be correct for that time period and a change could have occurred during the intervening years.

Could be. It's certainly been the current rule for at least 15 years. I don't know if it's changed before that.

Poetic License ...
 

Sorry about the confusion. It's my fault.

You guys are pretty sharp. The original NBA Trent Tucker Rule, in 1990, was "less than three tenths of a second". I took some liberties (that reminds me, I've got to get my poetic license renewed, I hope my new photo comes out better than the photo on my old license) because the article is about NFHS rules.

Did you guys know that shoes with flashing lights were banned by the NBA in 1993 because of LA Gear shoes worn by 1993 by Karl Malone and Hakeem Olajuwon?

This was the state quarterfinal, right? Am I the only one surprised there was not an official's supervisor at the game? I feel like there should be to avoid these situations. I'm sure it isn't common practice, but perhaps it should be.

And to be fair, there are guys refereeing in the NFL that kick rules occasionally. This is part of the reason the VP of officiating can radio in and help. However, I totally agree that this is a basic rule that an officiating crew in the quarters should know.

Thought this was interesting
 

I started telling this story my boy who rides the pine on a good HS Varsity team in the midwest. I got to the ".3 on the clock" part and he jumped in and said-- "they can only tap it then". I said "those particular refs didnt know that rule, how did you?" He looked at me like I am clueless (which I am) and said "we practice a play for that" So I guess good coaches do know the rule.

You realize that it was sarcasm right? You realize that I have been saying for years how silly rules tests are for years? You realize that I took the NF test (first time in probably 15 years or so) this year for the first time and they asked about 10-15 questions about measurements from the ball. Of course, there is no diameter of a line, but who cares what it has to be if you come to a court. Are you going to not play the game if you have a line that does not fit the requirements? Heck, what if you do not have a shadow line? Are you suspending the game? So why do people put so much stock in these test when clearly in this situation the officials did not know a rule that actually might be applicable?

Peace

While its probably not in my pregame, I don't think your comment is entirely blue ink worthy...

There is an 'officials supervisor' there along with a 4th official at the table. This isn't the first time there has been a controversy of this magnitude at the state tournament regarding rule application.

About 10 years ago in a title game, A1 made a '3' to tie the game with around 4 seconds left. The clock expired before B could collect and inbound the ball. The supervisor allowed the officials to go to the monitor to 'make sure the shot was released in time', and then to check whether it was a 2 or 3.

While the rule allows for this in a title game, the controversy was that the shot was clearly released in time and they shouldn't have been able to check where his foot was. The shot was corrected to be a '2' and B won the title.

My comment was throwing shade at those officials that have an "if you pregame it then it won't happen" mindset, e.g. on blarges.

Oh yes it is. I may spit up from laughter the day I hear in a pregame "let's not forget that less than .3 seconds...." Like come on. The pregame doesn't solve many scenarios, just some of the most commons ones that have to do with how a crew works.

This is just rules knowledge. A bit late for that in a pre-game in this case if you ask me.

In the pregame they would have gotten it wrong also.

Actually that's a pretty good point. Pregame is primarily about communication, not rules knowledge.

Yet if you don't depend on a test, even if SOME of the questions are irrelevant, you're almost guaranteed to have poor rule knowledge across a large part of the population, particularly upon those that poo-poo the tests.

On most current clocks the horn sounds at 0.0 that would mean if the clock was stopped at showed 0.1 then the time would be somewhere greater than 0.0 but less than or equal to 0.1 therefore if the clock shows 0.3 the time would be somewhere from greater than 0.2 to less than or equal to 0.3 In short it would be 0.3 or less which in turn matches up with the wording of the rule. If the clock didn't work like this then it would be a full tenth after 0.0 was displayed until the horn.

Seems like the only logical solution is to just do things the way they have been done. Carry on.

I look at the test the same way others look at what you say in the pre-game. Neither is the save all of these kinds of situation.

Peace

There is.

That's why there are cases (at least in some codes) where the clock shows 0:00.0 but the horn / lights haven't gone off / on.

I don't think anyone disagrees with you on that. And I don't think Camron ever implied such.

I live in a state where the rules exam is a huge deal, to the extent that it pretty much determines the rating order. It's ridiculous, but I acknowledge that we can't scrap testing completely, otherwise you're likely to have rules kicked such as this one on a big stage even more often.

That's why I started my statemen with most clocks. I have never in my entire life been present at a game where there were zeros on the clock and no horn unless auto horn had been turned off.

I did not say scrap testing either. I said that we put too much emphasis on it. I live in a state where we test, but the test is more reasonable. It actually asks how you adjudicate situations. Like where do you put the ball after an intentional foul or who shoots the FTs on a technical? And it is not perfect, they throw in a question or two about the court. I just think that we need to stop acting like your test score is what proves your knowledge. Even a closed book test is not going to tell you how to call a hand-checking call. I have seen some very knowledgeable officials of the rules not be able to call simple things that involve their judgment. And unless this situation was asked this year, how in the world would they review the rule outside of the test? I often look up things in the rulebook or verify things because of discussions that I might have, not because of what I said in the test.

Peace

How long have you been officiating? I ask because when I started in the 90s, most clocks did not have even tenths of a second. The rule was then what it is now, you could have 0:00 on the clock and not have a horn. The horn is what ended the game, not the reading on the clock. It was in the mid-2000s when the clocks with the tenths of a second became more of a norm. I did some games even in the early 2000s that did not have clocks with tenths on the time. So Bob knows what he is talking about. Heck, you go to the right gym now you might not see tenths on all clocks still.

Peace

I think most (modern) clocks work the way I describe and not the way you describe.

The only time I've seen this is on a clock that did not show tenths of a second. It was a fairly regular occurrence in that gym to have a clock show 0:00, but nobody heard a horn.

On clocks that don't have tenths, it's pretty easy to tell if it is one that goes to zero at zero or at .999 seconds. When you first flip the clock on, does it immediately go to 7:59, or does it take a second to get there? If it takes a second to get there, then 0 means 0; if it immediately changes, then 0 means "less than 1 second."

Tick Tick Tick
 

Definitely with the old fashioned tick tick tick mechanical scoreboards. I had it happen to me more than once. First question we always asked the table, "Was the automatic horn on?". If off, they turn it on and the horn sounds. Period over. If on, we play a little more basketball.

Right. And, that's why when .3 is displayed on the clock, then somewhere between .3 and .39 "remains on the clock".

.3 - .39 remains in the game, but .3 "remains on the clock" as it is meant in the rules.

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

When I have a the last second shot, I like to align the count in my head with the count on the clock. For the reasons cited above, I count “5” when the whole seconds value switches to “4”. That way I’m only 0.1 off reality as opposed to nearly a whole second. Of course I use the visual cues of the clock/light as well, but I find that having that count in my head helps, too.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The clock is not what determines the game is over alone. Why do officials insist on having a visual with the clock (which is often very high and out of the view of the court if you are clearly looking at a play) and not rely on the horn or maybe a light? What if you miss some contact or severity of the contact trying to look at the shot and the clock that might not be in a convenient place?

Peace

Latin On The Forum, How Cool Is That ???
 

Agree.

Here's what I always do when very close to the end of a period.

1) Make sure my partner knows that we're closing in on the end of a period (less than a minute) with an index finger in the air signal (unofficial signal), or he will signal me. If neither of us signal, the horn can give us a heart attack (already had one, no need for another).

2) If I believe that I will probably have coverage responsibility for the final shot, I will let my partner know by tapping my chest with my hand (official IAABO signal), or vice versa.

3) When I believe that we're down to about ten seconds, or so, I will take a quick peek at the clock to start my silent Cape Canaveral countdown (it helps me to anticipate the sound of the horn (only one school with lights), and it provides a backup in case the timekeeper screws up).

4) If a whistle occurs, mine, or my partner's, I will immediately look at the clock to make sure it stops in a timely manner, and if not, remember how much time to put back on the clock (even though I have trouble remembering what I had for breakfast this morning, now, where are my keys).

That's my story, and I'm sticking to it.

Absolutely correct. Unless you're working in a place where the horn is really hard to hear, trying to get visual alignment is silly. Eyes on the play, ears for the horn.

I have been an advocate of this for over 25 years.

MTD, Sr.

And before someone comes in and says you don't need 6 eyes on the shot/play -- yes, you do. Everyone needs to have an opinion on a last second shot or drive to the rack or anything similar.

We don't need eyes on the clock once we know it's running properly. I've worked in some really, really loud gyms and I've never not heard the horn.

Game's Almost Over, Give, Or Take, Fifteen Minutes ...
 

It was only twenty five years because for the first seventy-five years of Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.'s career there was no horn, it was a sundial.

https://tse1.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.W...=0&w=274&h=164

(Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. on left of image, Mark T. DeNucci, Jr. at center.)

ROTFLMTO!!

MTD. Sr.

Actually Billy the clock was a sundial but there was indeed a horn.

https://i.pinimg.com/736x/92/6a/21/9...ng-culture.jpg

A doubble ROTFLMTO!

MTD, Sr.