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

At the end of the game, SH has an inbound pass that was stolen/deflected by SJ. Official blows an inadvertent whistle and the ball is given back to SH for another throw-in. They make a 3-point game winning buzzer beater.

This play was described to me but I have not seen the situation in it's entirety. I would like to see what caused the inadvertent whistle and the adjudication process. Thanks.

I saw it on SportsCenter last night. It is exactly as you write.

The rule was applied correctly, but it was a very unfortunate screw up by the Trail.

Here you go.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/qxx-do27tSo" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Peace

Clock appeared to have been started so unsure why text indicates it did not. Clock stopped at 3.5 so unsure why they put less on. Yes, unfortunate. Would have liked to understand what T's rational was for blowing whistle.

I think more than .4 should have come off the clock at the time he stopped he blew the whistle. But then again that is why I think he blew his whistle. But then again maybe should have let it play out a little more before stopping play. But again this is why I posted this the way that I did because it is an open question. I do not necessarily have the right answer for these situations. If you have done this long enough this will likely happen to you at some point where you flinch and blow the whistle when you probably should not have.

Peace

Clock management is important and all, but I think this is a case where hypersensitivity to it backfired. There was an unexpected deflection on the TI pass. Then about 0.2s elapsed at which point the clock was started (likely corresponding to human reaction time—“oh, hey, that was tipped!”).

To nitpick this without letting the sequence play out first was most unfortunate. I don’t think this was technically an officiating “mistake,” but you can argue it was ill-advised.

Awesomely teachable moment, above all else.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There was some talk who believe the T blew because he thought the SJ player was stepping out of bounds during the tip or it was anticipated that he would land on the sideline with the ball. Was there a replay shot that showed this?

Per the mechanics manual, the T should be chopping the clock (which he doesn't) and activating the PTS pack upon legal contact of the ball from a player. If the T chops, it would give us a better indication when he believed the clock should have started. The T then raises his hand to stop the clock during his whistle.

If I'm the T, there is no way I would be able to see if the clock started on the tipped ball that eventually goes toward the sideline. The tipped ball by the SJ player is an active match-up that would have my attention as the T and my sightline would not be toward the clock. I would hope the tableside C would look (be responsible) for a proper clock start. Just looking at the video, it does not appear to me that the T looks toward the backboard clock during his whistle.

If they ruled an inadvertent whistle after the tipped (loose) ball, they should have gone to the possession arrow to determine which team would get the ball. Does anyone know if SH had the possession arrow?

Thanks JRut for posting. This a great play for learning and discussion.

Umm. That’s not how it works. Question for you: who had team control at the time of the IW?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If the rule is the same as the NFHS, no one. And, as far as I can tell, it is. Team control on a throw-in is solely for the purposes of administering fouls. True team control begins only once a player in-bounds is holding or dribbling the ball.

Agree. Should have gone AP. Maybe they did...Doesn’t look like it from clip but maybe there was more that isn’t shown...

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

I use NFHS and cite 4-12-2d and 4-12-3, and the absence of contravening evidence in 4-12 articles 4-6. There are also no 4.12 case plays that back up your interpretation.

This is a POI case involving a team that was in control, in my opinion. But I am willing to be proven wrong if you can come up with a clearer reference rule or case.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Take a look at this thread.
https://forum.officiating.com/basket...whats-poi.html

You can also look at the POE in the back of the 2017/18 rule book. It is same there as in 14/15 book.

According the NCAA Appendix V / Major Rule Differences Pg 116

Team Control Definition
NFHS: Team is in control when a player is in control, when a live ball is passed among teammates, during an interrupted dribble, when the ball is at the disposal of a throwerin.

NCAA: Men - Same as NFHS
Women - Same as NFHS

Loose Ball
NFHS: None

NCAA: Men - When a player holding/dribbling the ball fumbles, a defender bats/deflects the ball out of offensive player’s control or following a try being released.
Women - Same as NFHS

Got all that and understand it. We don’t count 3s, 10s, make court location determinations, yada yada yada, until player/team control inbounds. Other rules already exist to support all of these facets. The POE just interprets them in one place for those who still—some ten years after the 4-17 rule change—overthink this.

BUT!! The POE—which is just that and not an actual rule—mentions nothing about IW/POI situations during TIs before control is established inbounds. So with that, a plain reading of 4-12/13, as already argued, indicates that a team is in control during a TI after the pass is released and before player control is established inbounds. No gymnastics (to borrow the metaphor used last year) are needed to explain this. It’s right there in black and white in the rule book. There is no 4-12-3d that says “...the ball is released on a TI pass.” That’s all the NFHS would need to do to favor your interpretation, and yet in ten years they haven’t, and I believe that’s precisely because they don’t favor your interpretation.

I realize we didn’t resolve this last year and we’re not likely to this time around, either.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The NFHS has made it abundantly clear that team control only exists on a throw-in for the purpose of fouls and, for all other cases, there is no team control on a throw in.

Yes, the rules are horribly written with respect to that. But, the explanation of those rules when they came out and again in several situations after that specifically say that there is no team control for any other purpose during a throwin.

The most recent time they made that clear was in last year's powerpoint presentation.

You can see it on slide 30 here: https://www.nchsaa.org/sites/default..._Point.CD_.pdf

In it, they say:

Subsequent slides further clarify the issue.

They should, however, rewrite the actual rule to say what they mean it to say.

Interesting that both sets of NCAA rules are no more clear on this than the NFHS rules. What is the NCAA’s long-standing interpretation on this situation?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You can also look at 4.19.8f. Throwin is released and before it is legally touched a double foul occurs. Ruling. POI. Since Team As throwin “had not ended” the POI is a throwin by team A.
They didn’t say Team A has team control so they get ball back.

Once the throwin ends..inbounds control rules apply. They should put the POE language in the rule instead of making it a POE every two or three years...

Pick A Prize From The Top Shelf ...
 

Bingo.

I found a n NCAA clarification memo from Art Hyland Jan 2, 2018 covering this exact play in video. Team A is still in control even after throwin is deflected because a throwin is “a pass among teammates.”4-9-2..Give the ball back to Team A. They got it right in the video.

Art said what I was kind of thinking. He just articulated it better. So in NCAAM, we have an IW with a team in control in this situation.

Why, for the love of chicken soup, would we rule this any differently in HFHS? The relevant rule language is ostensibly identical.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I agree. I looked back in the 2006-07 Rules Fundamentals #2 where it says "Neither a team nor a player is ever in control during a dead ball, or during a jump ball or throw in." So, if this IW following the deflection situation occurred back then it would result in an AP throw in. As Cameron said, the NFHS made it clear the TC aspect on a throw in only pertains to fouls (by the throw in team.) Here in Ohio I remember the OHSAA was emphatic this was exactly how this was to be interpreted. Any other situation that might occur was to be ruled the same as it was before the new TC rule was adopted. Fine if the NCAA wants to interpret differently; but the NFHS has never changed its interpretation to my knowledge.

So, in essence, the release of the throwin is irrelevant, right? Had the IW occurred while the in-bounder was holding the ball, still go to AP if NFHS. That seems very unfair.

[QUOTE=bucky;1027971]So, in essence, the release of the throwin is irrelevant, right? Had the IW occurred while the in-bounder was holding the ball, still go to AP if NFHS. That seems very unfair.[/QUOT

If the throw in hasn’t been released then the throwin has not ended and the POI under NFHS rules is a throwin for that team. If the throwin is released and not yet touched, the throwin has not ended and POI is again a throwin to the throwin team. If the throwin is released, deflected and loose when IW happens then you go to AP. No team in control inbounds.
NCAA says even when throwin deflected and loose, throwin team still in control. POI goes back to throwin team.

100% correct

Something contradictory here. What difference does it make if the throw in has not ended? The whole point was to go to AP arrow when there was no TC and it was argued that there is no TC during a throw-in as far as IW whistles are concerned, that TC is only relevant for fouls.

That was my point. For IW, it should, based on what others have indicated under NFHS, not matter who was inbounding as you would always go to the arrow. Whether holding the ball, releasing it, releasing it and it being deflected, would all not come into play. An IW during any of those situations would result in going to the arrow.

The POI rule, 4-36-2b says the POI for an IW is a throwin when the interruption occurred during this activity. It is because of POI rule that ball goes back to team A if IW occurs before throw in ends. It could be made a whole lot clearer....

The rules explicitly say otherwise.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Not sure I agree that NCAA does not address this. I can only speak for WBB (I am pretty sure the men's rules are written the same), but I can say this:

Rule 4-8.2: A team shall be in control when: (a) a player of the team is in control; (b) while a live ball is being passed between teammates; (c) when a player of that team has disposal of the ball for a throw-in; or (d) during an interrupted dribble.

What is more important than when team control exists is when it ends. Rule 4-8.3 states that team control continues until the ball is in flight during a try for goal, an opponent secures control of the ball, or the ball becomes dead.

In the play from the game, once the ball was placed at SHU's disposal for the throw-in, they have team control until the conditions of Rule 4-8.3 exist. Since none of things had occurred prior to the official's whistle, SHU will be awarded the ball for a throw-in when play resumes (the men use the nearest throw-in spot, in this case, the 28-foot line; NCAAW would put the ball into play at the out-of-bounds spot nearest to where the ball was located when the official sounded the whistle).

You need to read the NFHS POI rule. It has three parts. Part 1 is for situations when there is team control. Part 2 is for situations during a free throw or a throw-in or when a team is entitled to one of those (the officials are about to administer such). Part 3 covers everything else.

Now how is the game resumed for:
Part 1 situations? —> award a throw-in to the team which had control.
Part 2 situations? —> award the team the throw-in or free throw which it was in the process of making or about to have take place.
Part 3 situations? —> award possession using the AP arrow.

The situation in the video is a Part 3 situation since the throw-in ended when the defender deflected the pass. Therefore, under NFHS rules play would be resumed using the AP arrow. NCAAM have a different ruling which awards the ball back to the throwing team.

On another note, Fox re-aired this contest yesterday and I watched the final ten minutes. Michael Stephens was the Trail official who blew the whistle during the play. After consulting the monitor with James Breeding, they determined to change the clock from 3.9 to 3.1 seconds remaining. 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.

fify

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.

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.

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)

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.

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.