Mechanics and clock situations (Video)
 

Play #1:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/8kInbveNfbY" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Play #2:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/ERWK1xn-Tz8" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Peace

Announcers, Can't Live With Them, Can't Live Without Them ...
 

In play #1, I wonder if the announcers were aware that the eventual call was a double foul (correct by the book)? I think that they believe that the officials got together and decided to go with a block (as shown by the video replay).

In Play 1, the blarge was handled correctly (both calls were reported to the table, and the ball was given to Red). However, both officials should not have immediately signalled their fouls. I don't know if the L and C were watching NBA videos the day before, because L immediately came up with a punch, instead of stopping the clock, and C did the hitting-the-hips, which is an NCAAW/NBA signal. If L and C both put up a fist, the clock would stop, and both would have a moment to decide whose call it is, and what the call is, and thus the double-foul scenario would be avoided. In this play, the drive started in C's PCA (Trail is not in the picture, because it is a transition play), so the call should ideally go to C.

For play 2, the off-ball officials need to ensure that the clock does not run following the held-ball signal (which this crew failed to do). The held ball was signalled and the whistle blown with 11.5 seconds remaining in the 3rd quarter, but the clock ran down all the way to 4.5. The on-ball official also needs to do a time check when the clock is supposed to stop, to avoid a situation like this. Normally, officials should check the clock on every transition sequence (in shot clock games, all officials monitor both clocks every time the clock starts, in transition, when they arrive in the front court, and when the clocks stop), as well as when the clock is supposed to start (stop). Not doing this led to the technical foul, and could possibly cause the officials to not be invited back to the IHSA tournament next year. In an NCAA game, they might be suspended for a clock error like this. [Another reason why I would encourage the nationwide adoption of a shot clock is that it keeps the officials on their toes, by making them constantly aware of clock status. Maybe with a shot clock, these officials would detect that 2 clocks are running when they shouldn't, and would have to have a long discussion with the table to correct both clock errors, and avoid this embarrassing situation. ;)]

Jeff you were probably watching the game, either in person or on tv. I did neither. Was the tech on the Marian bench or did that dick head, Taylor, get it? Either way, I would not be surprised, they always have a whole cluster **** of *******s on their bench.

Play 1: They handled the aftermath well and properly. Surprising that the C held his fist patiently for so long and then somehow still came down with the block signal, He looked like he was just going to leave it up there, which would've been perfect. Clearly, he didn't know the L had called anything.

And the announcers had no clue a double foul was ruled.

Play 2: The technical almost certainly was on bench personnel, because the head coach seemed to have no issue with it whatsoever.

To answer the question posed in the video -- "Was the bench upset about the time on the clock?" -- "the bench" doesn't get to be upset about anything. The bench gets to STFU. The coach gets to be upset ... that's it.

I think it was on the assistant. :D

Peace

What a clusterfuk in play 1. So much wrong there. Lead isn't gonna beat the play to the end line....he needs to pull up at the 3 point line and officiate like he's a C official for a moment. It's a pretty clear block and he's guessing cuz he doesn't have great position and has players between him and the contact. Doesn't post the foul, which is mandatory in HS. And wtf is up with him literally sprinting toward the table to report?? Slot is more at fault here...I would expect state finals officials have enough experience to know that transition drives in the paint are always Lead's call. And to know to post and hold even if they do have a whistle, cuz this is the perfect situation for a blarge to occur. And the late signal from the Slot....it's not confident looking at all.

Play 2 is understandable at the HS level, guys don't work on getting good at clocks. Maybe the table would know. Don't get into an argument with the bench....address the head coach and have them take care of the bench. I have no problem with the tech here but some would argue that the bench was baited due to the long discussion beforehand. But I trust johnny d that whatever happened was well deserved :D

Huh? The open hands on the hips is the official signal according to the NFHS, NCAA-M, NCAA-W, and NBA rule sets however in the latter three it is nearly universal to use the fists on hips blocking signal.

Yup.

Or Is It Half Right ???
 

Most (but not all) high school officials here in my little corner of Connecticut use fists. The best that I can do is to be half wrong, fists at preliminary, open hands at the reporting site. Old habits die hard.

Yes, I'm sure that this HS crew spent the night before the state finals watching NBA videos so they could apply NBA mechanics to the game. The play comes right down the middle, so L can get it. And, it's (for whatever reason) much harder for L to hold up on the signal than it is for C/T to do so. As it turns out, C had a better look -- but I can't fault L for making the call.

1. Need to be slow to show from the C there. Looks like that is his plan as he comes in pretty slow and then gives a pretty weak signal but not sure all that was going on.

2. You don't have precision timing system for final 8 in IL? We have them for the final 8 in our state.

We don’t use PTS at all here. In fact I would wager that that’s the case in most states.

I would be surprised too, because Carver Arena, where the state games are played, is home to a D1 university, many of whom use PTS. I believe that officials must be especially aware of starting and stopping the clock properly when there is no PTS, and not rely too much on the system when it is there (use good mechanics, so the operator knows to step in when the system fails).

My comment on NBA videos was not meant seriously, merely to highlight the use of non-approved mechanics at a high school game. If the Lead stopped the clock with a fist (the correct thing to do in HS and college), we would not have a blarge, since it was the Lead's premature preliminary signal that led to the double foul.

Unfortunately my state office gives way too much of a crap about not using "college mechanics" in high school games. :rolleyes:

If the arena already has PTS then that's just dumb not to use it. The officials don't even have to do anything different -- they can count and chop clock as normal and not even have to press their button. The clock can be started by a guy at the table as normal and the PTS packs used only to stop the clock.

I totally agree. But you still need to be aware of clock status, PTS or no PTS.

I believe that they had to have covered primary coverage area and double whistles in pregame, with the extra time they had from arriving to the arena earlier. Maybe even state tournament officials forget sometimes :o.

I need to state this. PTS is not the end all be all of solving clock problems. You still can have clock problems and you see they have them with the PTS. In the NCAA Tournament, there was a clock malfunction that helped cause a debate of if a player could be substituted for during that malfunction. My understanding the NCAA Tournament uses PTS in all their games. So assuming that would solve that issue is kind of silly when many big arenas use that system and we still see clock issues.

Secondly, it is likely not used because no official uses that system at all during the season and you might not want the first time to be the State Finals, which if not used properly or malfunctions, that would be an issue as well.

I disagree. The officials did not see the other official. Stopping the clock might have helped, but if you never recognize that your partner has a whistle then it does not matter. Even the Center held for some time but he clearly did not see his partner at all.

And for the record, I rarely know many officials that use the exact and proper mechanic in these situations. It is a great goal, but it is not often what happens in real life.

Peace

Primary coverage areas really do not apply in transition. You have to help out in many situations until everyone is settled in the FC. This was one of these situations that either official could have had a whistle in theory.

Peace

Learn this right now, bud: blue text = sarcasm on this forum.

I'm confused -- that's in blue, so is it true or is it sarcasm?

Argh, you're right as usual.

No one said it was end all be all. The system would have very likely been very beneficial in the situation shown.

Am I missing something here or do most states use PTS in the latter rounds of the postseason? Why are people acting all surprised that it wasn't used here?

Our (SC) state finals are in Columbia at the UofSC arena and PTS has never been used. I assumed that was the norm.

It might have like a lot of things in life "might" do something. But the problem again if you were paying attention, no one uses this system even part of the playoffs. So the biggest games of the year now have officials doing something they have not used likely their entire career until this very moment. So not just worrying about calling the game and doing all the other things we do as officials, now they have to add the usage of a device they might not even know how it works. I have used the system maybe 4 times total in my career. And the last time was over 10 years ago if I recall. So unless you use this system on an even semi-regular basis, I think that is the reason it is not used. It might not even be available to the IHSA either as assumed.

Peace

None ...
 

One of my buddies worked his first state tournament this past season. He made it all the way to the quarterfinals.

Connecticut, especially my little corner of Connecticut, doesn't use a lot of three person crews, but we always use three person crews in the state quarterfinals, semis, and finals.

He did a great job.

After that game I asked him about how much experience he had working three person games. He answered, "None, this is my first three person game ever".

"Three person scrimmages?". "None."

"Three person camps?". "None."

https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3775/1...8029f778_m.jpg

The IHSA has used 3 person since 1997-1998 for all playoff games at all classes and levels. Three person is not something they do for the first time in this situation. I have never worked a single playoff game in my career other than 3 person.

Peace

Play 1 is so confusing. The C held his signal long enough for the L to do his half-assed PC signal, which the C should have seen. The C then follows with another half-assed block signal. If I were the L and had a whistle here I would have deferred to the C if he also had his fist up as his look was much better than my guess.

Play 2. Ouch. Loss of 5 crucial seconds hurts.

The Best Laid Plans Of Mice And Men Often Go Awry (Robert Burns) ...
 

That's why I always keep a Cape Canaveral mental countdown for the last 10-15 seconds of a period. This allows me to anticipate the horn, and, as far as I'm concerned, also gives me definite knowledge (if needed).

Of course it's preferable, and more accurate, if I look at the clock when a whistle sounds (as either the calling, or noncalliing, official).

I should probably say almost always. Sometimes the action may be so intense and my concentration on such action so focused, that I may not realize that the period is close to ending. That's why I expect (as pregamed) my partner to signal me (index finger in air) if we're less than a minute, and I will do likewise (if I'm aware).

Once, or twice, a season the plan goes "awry" and an unexpected and unanticipated horn goes off, scaring the hell out of me, almost giving me another heart attack. I hate it when that happens. It's a good thing that most schools today have automated external defibrillators on hand. Otherwise I wouldn't be able to finish the game.

That is why I give my partners the index finger in the air signal, and say 1 minute. At ~ 10 seconds remaining, if I am responsible for the clock, I tap my chest, to let my partners know that I have responsibility for the last-second shot. This allows me to anticipate the end of a period. I also make it a point to scan the clocks (DC, MD, and some local private school leagues use a shot clock) in transition, on changes of possesion, and whenever they start/stop.

Please Give Me The Finger ...
 

... an "official" IAABO mechanic and signal, yet IAABO doesn't offer an "official" signal for making your partner aware that the the end of the period is nearing. I've had partners give me the index finger (most preferred), or point to an imaginary wrist watch, or point to the clock, or even give the tap on the head signal (least preferred since it's already a shot clock violation signal, though we don't use a shot clock for public and parochial high schools in Connecticut).

You need to watch the clock at all times, not just at that time of the game. The clock could have run while it should have been stopped 6 minutes in the quarter.

Peace

Cuckoo Clock ...
 

Good point. Good advice. It just that a clock running down several seconds at the end of the period (especially the fourth period, or an overtime period) will have more of an impact on a team running a last play than if it runs the same amount of time in the middle of a period (assuming no shot clock).

All this Forum advice it good, but let's not forget the help that we always get from the fans. "Clock." "Clock." "Clock." "Clock." "Clock." Those fans are always an official's best friends, always willing to offer their support and praise.

You have a point. As mentioned earlier, I also make it a point to scan the clocks (DC, MD, and some local private school leagues use a shot clock) in transition, on changes of possession, and whenever they start/stop. That way, if either clock does not stop, or fails to start, I know what is going on, and can make any necessary corrections.

The play in the video didn't involve a game with a shot clock, so you don't need to keep on repeating about shot clocks in the Beltway. You should be checking the GAME CLOCK throughout the game, with extra diligence in the last minute of quarters/halves and OT's.

I only have worked in states with shotclocks and I got in a habit of looking at both clocks and repeating 4 numbers. XXYY

The XX were the seconds in the game clock
The YY were the seconds in the shot clock

This way I almost always had definite knowledge of a specific time.

deecee, are you from the DC Metro Area? I have worked games both with and without shot clocks, and I look to always keep the game clock (and shot clock) in my peripheral vision, to be aware of 10-second counts, starts, stops, violations (10 and 30, if a shot clock is used), and ends of periods. It is somewhat easier with a shot clock, because shot clocks both encourage me to check the clocks frequently, and because some shot clocks either display the game clock, or are physically connected to the game clock display.

Re: the clocks and blarge videos, it is embarrassing and painful to see a State Tournament crew making basic mistakes that rookies and veterans are constantly reminded about in pre-games. I can only hope that my crews do not call a blarge, and that we do not bungle the time in the final few seconds of a period, or any time before.

Work long enough and you will see how much it matters what you ultimately say in a pre-game. Games of this magnitude have their mistakes shown to everyone. Working a game during much of a season you might get away with something because there is not live video to show that mistake. Once again, what you talk about in pre-game actually does not mean you will prevent a mistake.

Peace

A wise man once told me to glance at the clock anytime you cross a straight black line (color caveats for some gym floors) and anytime you hear a whistle. Of course there have been times where action is "too" intense for me to do this, or I have (more likely) flat out forgotten. This has been good advice for me in my young career-- especially in those 1A & 2A girls games where dad is too busy yelling at his daughter on the floor to remember to start/stop the clock.

Question

Situation where a team calls a timeout with 10 seconds to go in a game. They set up their winning play. They inbound and start that winning play and you notice the clock isnt running. You decide to kill it and start them over at 10 seconds and inbounding the ball. Would you consider giving them a time out to redraw a play since they showed their cards on what play they were doing and now the defense knows what they are running and better defend it. Because the clock operator fell asleep?

I would not start them over at 10 seconds as time had elapsed.

At what time would you restart? Why?

The rulebook says "If an official has definite knowledge of the time elapsed (e.g. by a count), the clock shall be reset to that time". In NCAA rules, at least .3 seconds have to pass when the ball is legally touched inbounds. By analogy, I would subtract .3 seconds, as the error was realized instantly (the time would be 9.7). If the clock does not use 10ths, the clock would be reset to 9 seconds.

You would do that in an NCAA game or an NFHS game?

Didn’t we beat this horse a couple of months ago?

Extra Diligence ...
 

Good advice, especially the part about extra diligence. Nice choice of words.

Sure ...
 

If they have a timeout? Sure. If they don't have any timeouts? Sure, at the expense of a technical foul. Otherwise? No free timeouts.

NCAA, I would subtract 0.3 automatically. NFHS, I would do so as well, if the officials instantly realize that the clock failed to start. Since NFHS is silent on this situation, I will use a solution that is there: the NCAA solution.

Run Silent, Run Deep (1958) ...
 

Silent?

Basketball Rules Interpretations - 2009-10
SITUATION 11: Team B scores a goal to take the lead by one point. A1 immediately requests and is granted a timeout with three seconds remaining in the fourth quarter. Following the time-out, Team A is awarded the ball for a throw-in from anywhere along the end line. A1 passes the ball to A2, who is also outside the boundary; A2 passes the ball to A1 who is inbounds and running the length of the court. The timer mistakenly starts the clock when A2 touches A1’s pass while standing outside the boundary. An official notices the clock starting on A2’s touch (a), before A2 releases the throw-in pass to A1, (b), while A2’s throw-in pass is in flight to A1, or (c), as soon as A1 catches the throw-in pass. RULING: This is an obvious timing mistake and may be corrected. In (a) and (b), the official shall blow the whistle, stop play and direct the timer to put three seconds on the game clock. Since the throw-in had not ended, play is resumed with a Team A throw-in from anywhere along the end line. In (c), the official may put the correct time on the clock, but must make some allowance for the touching by A1 – likely 10ths of a second, if displayed. The ball is put in play nearest to where it was located when the stoppage occurred to correct the timing mistake. A “do over” is not permitted in (c), since the throw-in had ended. (4-36; 5-10-1)

What I meant is that NFHS has no explicit coverage in the rules for a situation where the clock starts and is immediately stopped, or where the clock is immediately stopped because it failed to start. NCAA does, and that is why I would use the NCAA rule to cover this gap. The solution to (c) in your example says that 10ths of a second need to be taken off. I would take off .3, because it takes that much time to catch a ball and do something else with it (by rule, one cannot catch and shoot with .3 or less on the clock).

Another, "We are making this way too complicated" situation.

If you know the clock was supposed run, take some time off the clock. What it means as definite knowledge is really not that deep. Yes the NCAA has an exact time that should at the very least come off the clock, but what if more than .3 should have come off the clock? Can people stop making something that is not that hard so complicated?

Peace

The NFHS isn't silent on the situation. You're making up your own rule. The NFHS says you can take time off based on definitely knowledge and definite knowledge is comprised of counts that you may have had. That is it. If you don't have a count (visible or mental), you don't take time off. Period. You don't say it must have been at least X because the NCAA does it. That just is not supported by rule (in NFHS).

It makes it hard to keep it simple when there are those who suggest that something be done that is counter to the rules. The simple thing is to take off whatever time you "know" to have elapsed, not guess at some number.

Well, there are still people that make that complicated. Taking time off is not an exact science. So if you take off 7 seconds as opposed to 5 seconds, there are people that will claim you do not have definite knowledge to make the distinction.

Peace

We've beaten the clock bungling horse to death, but what have you to say about the blarge? It looks to me as though the lead was oblivious to the center official's foul signal, and should have let him have the call. However, after both officials made their calls, the situation was handled properly. The team on offense at the time of the foul regained the ball at the point of interruption, and the game continued from there, albeit with somewhat less credibility for the officials.

Imagine this exact situation, only the ball was already in the FC in opposite corner as C, and C makes a PC call while L (who had a great look and was in his PCA) had a block. We had to go double foul as well, and that made for a long night. That ball watching partner is the lone amigo on my blocked partners list after that one.

This is a pretty visible situation for that crew, unfortunately. They messed up during the play but they at least adjudicated it correctly following the blarge mishap.

If they had discussed this in the pre-game and took the position of many that the this is the lead's play, then not sure why we would care what the lead is doing here? The Center or outside official on these plays is usually the one that is told to not signal at all. So if there was a pre-game with that position, then the lead is doing what was expected. ;)

Peace

I guess so. The CCA manual recommends that an out-of-area official wanting a call should make an extra blast on his whistle, and that is what the C would have done in an NCAA game, if it was pregamed that it was the lead's play. Is there a similar procedure in the NFHS manual?

However, the play on the video was on the center official's side of the court, so he should be the one responsible. If it was me as the center, I would have made the call, because it was on my side, and I had the better angle. On center-side drives, C is the primary official, transition or no transition, and the Lead's interjection started this whole kettle of fish.

The problem as I see it you keep talking in absolutes when there are no absolutes in these situations. The play was in transition, so there is no primary coverage area clearly defined at that point of the play. Then you have a situation that even if it was the Center's call, the Lead took a play that they normally take or would normally make a decision on as it is coming to them. This is also not a college game so the CCA manual means nothing here.

Since you mentioned what was discussed in the pre-game as that would prevent this situation, I have to ask what would be resolved if you have officials that disagree on how this was to be handled? At most camps and training I have attended, usually, the position is that the C or T simply "post" their foul and do nothing until they are absolutely sure no one else has a whistle. When it is clear that they are alone, they can make a signal. But the C in this case took a long time to make his call and I am wondering if he was not sure what he was going to call as opposed to not seeing the L when he blew his whistle? There would be no blarge/double foul if the C just kept his arm up in the air and did nothing. This situation certainly was a play where you would almost have to suspect there will be another official making a call here. Again the problem as I see it is you have to decipher what philosophy is going to prevail and this has many elements to it for sure.

Peace

That drive was right down the middle. The contact even happened on the L's side of the lane. Normally, I'd say this is the L's call. That said, the L was way out of position to make that call and got it wrong as a result.

JRut, the reason why I mentioned the CCA Manual is because a specific procedure exists if an official wants to make a call outside his area. I wanted to know if the NFHS mechanics manual has something similar. Just because I mention another level does not mean that my question is a priori irrelevant.

Camron, I would agree with you that the Lead made a call while out of position. One can see on the video that the defender was moving into the dribbler, so a player control call would not be defensible. Unless the Lead saw something really different, like the dribbler warding off the defender with an arm, or another offensive player fouling, he should not have made a call. Unfortunately, NFHS rules do not allow officials to get together and make a single call (as NCAAW rules do) when two signals are given, so both officials had to report their separate fouls to the table, and the L had to face the music from the offensive team's bench.

Except when the NFHS says that you can:

Basketball Rules Interpretations - 2009-10
SITUATION 11: Team B scores a goal to take the lead by one point. A1 immediately requests and is granted a timeout with three seconds remaining in the fourth quarter. Following the time-out, Team A is awarded the ball for a throw-in from anywhere along the end line. A1 passes the ball to A2, who is also outside the boundary; A2 passes the ball to A1 who is inbounds and running the length of the court. The timer mistakenly starts the clock when A2 touches A1’s pass while standing outside the boundary. An official notices the clock starting on A2’s touch (a), before A2 releases the throw-in pass to A1, (b), while A2’s throw-in pass is in flight to A1, or (c), as soon as A1 catches the throw-in pass. RULING: This is an obvious timing mistake and may be corrected. In (a) and (b), the official shall blow the whistle, stop play and direct the timer to put three seconds on the game clock. Since the throw-in had not ended, play is resumed with a Team A throw-in from anywhere along the end line. In (c), the official may put the correct time on the clock, but must make some allowance for the touching by A1 – likely 10ths of a second, if displayed. The ball is put in play nearest to where it was located when the stoppage occurred to correct the timing mistake. A “do over” is not permitted in (c), since the throw-in had ended. (4-36; 5-10-1)

Mechanics at any level are guides. They are there to give some rules of engagement but in the real world, you have to know when to use them as hard fast rules and when to ignore the details based on the play or situation in front of you.

And if you ever go to a higher level camp, no one cares what you think the book says if a clinician is telling you how to interact in a play with your partners. The mechanics books do not cover every possible situation.

Peace

I was not saying that the mechanics manual was something absolute, but asking if there are procedures to handle an out of area call under NFHS mechanics the way there is under college mechanics. In the absence of specific guidance to the contrary, I would borrow the suggestion from the CCA manual to give an extra toot on the whistle for an out-of-area call, if I was ever in a situation where I needed to make one. The OP situation was in a gray area, but since the play started from the center's side, and C was in a better position to rule on it, C should have taken his call and sold it all the way.

The two situations in the videos showed that the crew was out of sync, because there was no shared understanding of what to do on either the blarge play or the clock issue on the held ball at the end of the third quarter. By the third quarter, there is presumably enough time for the crew to get on the same page. I thought that State Tournament officials would be better, but every day you learn something (even if it is what to avoid). These videos are probably good as "what not to do" material at an association training session, whether we are working a state tournament game that is televised, or a middle school game in front of <30 people in the stands.

In a or b, I would not take off any time. In c, I would take off 0.3 seconds.
Returning to the clock situation in the OP, how is it possible that not one of the three officials remembers the time when the held ball happened? Even if that happened, the scorer (or alternate official) would have known that the clock should have stopped, and the time that the whistle was blown. To quote Hawk Harrelson "That was so bad, that was absolutely BRUTAL!" I'm sad for, frustrated about, and ashamed for the officials at this game. I would be frustrated, embarrassed, and/or angry if something like that happened with a crew that I was on. SMH.

I would challenge the statement "If you don't have a count (visible or mental), you don't take time off. Period."

Ball is inbounded in back court and dribbled to FC, passed around, shot taken, etc before its picked up that clock never started.

Any of the officials will have 100% certainty that up to X seconds have passed. What that number is up to the officials to come to consensus on but you can be 100% certain that a number greater than 0 should be deducted. Why does it have to be an all or nothing scenario? Why do we leave ALL the time on OR only the exact amount remaining? Why can't "common sense and logic" be applied to "official information"?

Unless the NF defines this in a very specific way like the NCAA has, then what you do ultimately is up to you. We know when a certain amount of time has gone off. We do not have a monitor to verify that information. And that is why it is more important for us at the high school level to really watch the clock. When we don't, then it leads to more speculation. But honestly very few times have I had anyone complain that much about the time when we make an adjustment. And if they do complain, then not their decision in the end. I also always consult with partners when I can and usually we can come to some idea. I think overthink this as well as many other things we do based on some vague rule.

Peace

It isn't all or nothing. It is definite or nothing. If you got to 8 in the backcourt, you can take off that 8. If then, in the FC, you got to 4 on the 5 count 3 times, you can take off 12 more. You can't take off for the gaps between the counts unless, for some reason, you were counting then too. You take off any seconds you know to have elapsed and don't fudge for the gaps where you don't know how long it was.

Why? That is how the rules say to handle it. If they want us to guess and make up something, they'd change the rule to remove definite knowledge and say just wing it.

Is anyone seriously suggesting this is what you do?

Again, not sure anyone said, "wing it." But if you know the clock was stopped and you look up and the clock never moved, then you can take some time off the clock based on what you know should have gone off. Not an exact science but it would be reasonable to always take a second off in those situations. You might take off more if there were multiple dribbles or slow movement up the court. Either way, how is anyone going to really know but you? And you can ask for some information from table people and sometimes even a coach or two might have some insight, but in the end, this is your decision.

Peace

MSU, again. :rolleyes:

I do not recall that none of us have to answer to you or anyone on this board about this issue. Your interpretation of the rule is fine, where you live. ;)

Peace

Make Some Allowance For The Touching, Likely Tenths Of A Second ...
 

Maybe that's what the rulebook states, but the NFHS interpretation states otherwise. It's definite, or nothing, or an educated guess in this specific circumstance:

Basketball Rules Interpretations - 2009-10
SITUATION 11: Team B scores a goal to take the lead by one point. A1 immediately requests and is granted a timeout with three seconds remaining in the fourth quarter. Following the time-out, Team A is awarded the ball for a throw-in from anywhere along the end line. A1 passes the ball to A2, who is also outside the boundary; A2 passes the ball to A1 who is inbounds and running the length of the court. The timer mistakenly starts the clock when A2 touches A1’s pass while standing outside the boundary. An official notices the clock starting on A2’s touch (c), as soon as A1 catches the throw-in pass. RULING: This is an obvious timing mistake and may be corrected. In (c), the official may put the correct time on the clock, but must make some allowance for the touching by A1 – likely 10ths of a second, if displayed. The ball is put in play nearest to where it was located when the stoppage occurred to correct the timing mistake. A “do over” is not permitted in (c), since the throw-in had ended. (4-36; 5-10-1)

Also, what we do to correctly answer a written question on a rules exam may be little different than what we do, with our partner's input, in a real game situation.

Sometimes we just have to take the bull by the horns and officiate the game according to intent and purpose to the best to our ability under the circumstance presented to us in a real game of basketball, as opposed to taking a written test. I know that it's slippery slope ("What other rules do you ignore BillyMac"), but sometimes we have to try to do what's seems fair to everybody. Note I that said sometimes. I'm not a big loose with the rules guy, but sometimes we just have to do what we have to do.

Hopefully the ruling slips under the radar and the phone doesn't ring the next morning. If it does, then we go the mea culpa route.

That being said, I'm using definite counts as much as reasonably possible, as advocated by Camron Rust ("Eight seconds of a ten second count. Four seconds of a five second count. Two seconds of a three second count. Plus the two seconds I counted in my head once I realized the clock hadn't started. We're running down sixteen seconds off the game clock. What? Twenty seconds? Sorry coach. That's all we can run off with definite knowledge. I'm not running down twenty seconds.").

A double negative??? So you do have to answer to Camron?

No. Keep it moving. ;)

Peace

In play one, if the C doesn't make a preliminary signal, is it okay if the lead changes his own call and reports the block? Either because of a word by the C, or simply because he realizes after the fact that this is the correct call?

After Further Consideration, I Changed My Mind ...
 

Great question just another ref. I'd like to rephrase to be sure I understand the question.

Are you saying, in the simple situation (one whistle, one preliminary signal) of an official giving a preliminary signal (outside any other conflicting signals, or communications with partner), may an official change his mind at any time up to his reporting to the table from the reporting area?

Also, can the preliminary signal by one official be immediately changed to a different preliminary signal by the same official?

Let the games begin.

This was exactly my biggest take-away from the play. He did a great job of just staying with the fist and then went block anyway. What was he looking at and what was he waiting for??

He was surprised by L making the call and not noticing that C had a fist. This made C think "oh crap, the L jumped the gun. Now I need to make my call." This made him do his lackluster block signal (incidentally, the call by C was correct, the defender did not have legal guarding position at the point of contact). Typically, in a double whistle situation, officials have to post the fist, see if another call has been made (if there is a fist or palm in the air), look at the other person making the call, and decide whose call to take. However, the L immediately went to a preliminary signal, making this resolution impossible.

I would be interested to hear the IHSA observer's take on that game, if there was one.

So he's looking right at the L, sees an obvious PC signal and punch, but doesn't see a fist first, so he signals block? I'm not buying that, personally.

Double Whistle ...
 

Here on my little corner of Connecticut, where 95+% of our games are two person, when double whistles, and double fist signals, occur in a block/charge situation, in the absence of any preliminary signals, rule of thumb is that we automatically allow the lead to make the call. This may not be in any major mechanics manual, including IAABO, and I'm sure that there are better methods, but that's what we have been doing here for over thirty-five years, and it becomes second nature to us.

Of course, that assumes that both officials realize that two whistles sounded (think very loud gym with whistles sounding at the same exact time), and that one official (or both) doesn't quickly want to sell his call with an emphatic preliminary signal.

I haven't had a blarge in almost four decades of basketball officiating, but that doesn't mean that it can't happen in my next game.

That's supposition makes no sense.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

I will give you some insight in what an observer might be thinking (considering I am in that position on many levels). Don't have a blarge. It is not that complicated. Post your foul and see your partner. Expect a call from your partner in a dual coverage area.

Again, not that complicated.

Peace

Experience ...
 

Bingo.

I guess anything is possible if it is all in your mind. ;)

Peace

Preliminary Signal ...
 

I would like to hear some discussion regarding this situation. Repercussions from the coach? Getting it right? Allowed by rules? When does a call actually become a call?

A call is when you blow your whistle and tell everyone what we are doing with signal or voice. I guess you can change that situation after the fact, but you will not have much credibility when you do that. So we can play games with what it is when we actually make a call, but that would be chaos. For one if I blow my whistle, then always have a conference after the fact, then you will have every call up for debate. For example, I call a foul on a shooter near the basket and I blow my whistle before the shot goes in the basket and the shot misses, can we debate that call? Sure you could, but then what if we determine the call was not proper and no foul should have been called? Do we now go back to the point we blew the whistle and say, "No that does not count"?

This is not football where the play eventually ends and then the play can be discussed after the fact. Because no such flag ever kills the play. In basketball we are often killing the play with our whistle. And if we can debate the foul after the fact and the play would have been live, either we are going to have to change the rules to allow that to be a regular thing or we will be using the AP arrow often in games because we can debate what is the call. Because could I make a every call up for some level of discussion when the ball is clearly live.

Peace

Devil's Advocate ...
 

Agree.

Devil's Advocate: "Coach. My preliminary signal was premature. I jumped the gun. I should have waited for the play to develop. I called the block because I thought the play was going one way, but a split second after my preliminary signal I gave it a second thought and decided that it was definitely a player control foul. Would you rather me stick to my mistake, or would you rather me get it right?"

I'm not disagreeing with JRutledge, but is there ever a time when we're allowed to change our call (no complications, alone, by ourself, with no conference, no input from our partner, no conflicting signals, etc.).

Of course, we should all heed the advice of Confucius: "Have a patient whistle."

Words From The Wise ...
 

Coach: "I'd rather that you get it right the first time."

The point was whether anyone felt this call was irreversible because of the preliminary signal, which most say is the key to when you "have to" report both fouls on a blarge.

Irreversible ...
 

Based on the interpretation, the conflicting preliminary signals (calls) are irreversible.

4.19.8 SITUATION C: A1 drives for a try and jumps and releases the ball.
Contact occurs between A1 and B1 after the release and before airborne shooter
A1 returns one foot to the floor. One official calls a blocking foul on B1 and the
other official calls a charging foul on A1. The try is (a) successful, or (b) not successful.
RULING: Even though airborne shooter A1 committed a charging foul, it
is not a player-control foul because the two fouls result in a double personal foul.
The double foul does not cause the ball to become dead on the try. In (a), the goal
is scored; play is resumed at the point of interruption, which is a throw-in for
Team B from anywhere along the end line. In (b), the point of interruption is a try
in flight; therefore the alternating-possession procedure is used. (4-36)

Even if it is a given that signal = call, which is debatable, questions remain. This is a good example. In the OP, the C looks like he was about to let it go before finally giving the block signal. So, if he doesn't give the preliminary signal at all, now is he not allowed to report his foul at all, which most of us seem to agree was the correct call?

Debatable ...
 

True. We've been down this path before, it certainly has been debated here on the Forum over an over with no certain consensus, or conclusion.

Is it debatable? I have never seen this conversation anywhere else but here and with one person honestly. So if it is that debatable we would be having this conversation several times in several places, but it never seems to happen that way. And what is disappointing is that this person actually had an email conversation where they could have asked for clarification of this issue, but didn't do just that. So I am not so sure this is even debatable but in someone's mind.

Peace

Consensus ???
 

Are you saying that a large majority of Forum members have come to a consensus regarding this topic? That the word "call" is well defined, and may include a preliminary signal, by the NFHS and needs no discussion?

Correct, it needs no discussion. It has never come up as a real world issue or scenario.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

This forum is a very small percentage of people to all officials, let alone the ones we actually deal with in life. Whether there is a consensus here or not means nothing if the people we deal with in any context never discuss this issue. In my world, no one has ever made this an issue the way it has been made here. I have heard individuals suggest we should go to the NCAA Women's interpretation, but never have anyone suggest that we should not invoke 4.19.8 Situation C as written. BTW I also work NCAA games and the rule interpretation is the same on the Men's side. So when this situation happens there, we go with the same result as the NF game suggests.

Peace

I don't think the issue has EVER been about what C is ALLOWED to do, only about what he is REQUIRED to do if both officials give signals.

Now, if you want to get into a (different) discussion on whether it's better for C to give the different call or just to eat it, have at it. Personally, I'd rather read more speculation on what FED means with the BC rule change.

You Make The Call ...
 

In my opinion, a call is the same whether it's visual (signal, preliminary, or otherwise), or oral ("Block", "Charge", Timeout", "Travel", etc.).

Whether, or not, the visual call, or oral call, or both, can be changed is another topic.

In some very specific cases officials routinely change calls (out of bounds call, partner comes in with a much better look, calling official decides to change call).

In the very specific case of 4.19.8 SITUATION C, the NFHS states that we stick with both of the conflicting calls (preliminary signals), thus a double foul.