Video Request: St. Johns at Seton Hall - Inadvertent Whistle

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

The situation in the video is a Part 3 situation since the throw-in ended when the defender deflected the pass. Therefore, under an ambiguous 12-year old NFHS POE that has never been codified in the rules play would be resumed using the AP arrow. NCAAM have a different interpretation which awards the ball back to the throwing team.

fify

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Michael Stephens went over to broadcaster Len Elmore before play resumed and explained that he sounded his whistle after the deflection because the clock did not properly start.

We can debate whether he was over-sensitive to the clock in this situation and should have held his whistle while allowing the action on the court to play out and then halted the game at a better stopping point to correct the clock, but he did not have an inadvertent whistle afterall. He deliberately sounded it to make a timing correction at an unfortunate point in the action.

That's nice, but whether IW or not at that point, POI principles apply regardless.

BillyMac, since you're good at submitting rule change suggestions, next spring can you submit this case to be rectified once and for all? I recommend the committee either adopt Art Hyland's interpretation that a TI should fall under the umbrella of "a ball that is being passed among teammates" (that could be done with a "NOTE" in the rules) or that Rule 4-12-3e be added to state that TC "ends when a TI ends if the end of the TI is not simultaneous with the establishment of player control." One solution or the other, please! The current setup of "governance by POE" is unprofessional.

[Nevadaref]

Crosscountry55 makes an excellent point. Under the POI rule in NFHS this is either a part 1 situation with team control or a part 3 situation without control by either team. The definition of TC in the current rules book would lead one to put it in under part 1, while the language of the numerous and recent POEs on TC would place it in part 3.
I agree that the NFHS needs to fix this situation and update the rules book with language that states what is desired.

[bob jenkins]

We've all said that from the very beginning. Heck, if you can have PC fouls without PC, then you could have TC fouls without TC -- just change the foul definition to include "from the time a throw-in starts until PC is obtained inbounds". No need to change the TC definition.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

We've all said that from the very beginning. Heck, if you can have PC fouls without PC, then you could have TC fouls without TC -- just change the foul definition to include "from the time a throw-in starts until PC is obtained inbounds". No need to change the TC definition.

That is what the team control foul rule says.4-19-7. In looking at player/team control rule...the only portion that mentions throw in is 4-12-2D. “Team is in control when ball at disposal of player during a throwin.” It doesn’t say team is in control during the entire throwin. It sets a specific limit on it. 4-12-2A says “Team is in control when player is in control.” That language is broad enough to cover the situation in D but if NFHS meant for it to..there’d be no need for D. I think they need to explain in 4-12 that most of its language deals with inbounds situation. Also that there is no team control once ball is released on throwin. I think folks look at 4-12-2A, the rules about how TC ends and the TC foul language and conclude team control continues after release of throw in.
Other option is go to college as cross country says. (I have a headache now)

[bucky]

Good post 30 Nevada as well as followup from crosscountry.

Some other cases got me thinking too:

Case 4.19.7 SIT D. It is mostly the same play (deflected throw-in) except after the deflection, there is an offensive or more specifically, a TC foul. The case explains that Team A was in control during the throw-in and therefore it is a TC foul. Notice the word "during." even though throw-in ended. For some reason, rule 4-12-6 is cited.

Also, case 4.19.8 SIT F gives more info. Ball released on a throw-in by Team A and there is a double foul. Since the throw-in had not ended, POI is throw-in by Team A. Here, the NFHS clearly points out that the throw-in had not ended and thus, Team A gets another throw-in and they cite 4-36-2b.

Yes, they involve fouls, not IWs. They use words however that get the brain spinning. NFHS needs to be clearer for sure.

[HokiePaul]

I always had assumed that it was the officials who started the clock in college -- I usually see at least 1 officials with his/her hand on the timing pack behind their back to turn it on. I had assumed this was the official start of the clock -- and I also assumed that the whistle automatically stopped it.

Is this correct? If so, then why would the official have been worried about a late start to the clock if he was the one starting it? And if not, what is the official turning on behind their back with the timing pack?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by HokiePaul

I always had assumed that it was the officials who started the clock in college -- I usually see at least 1 officials with his/her hand on the timing pack behind their back to turn it on. I had assumed this was the official start of the clock -- and I also assumed that the whistle automatically stopped it.

Is this correct? If so, then why would the official have been worried about a late start to the clock if he was the one starting it? And if not, what is the official turning on behind their back with the timing pack?

I work a few game a year with the PTS, and yes, the officials should have started the clock with their packs.