Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 1040156)

In regard to a throwin situation, I respectfully disagree. If play is resumed by a throw-in, the clock must be started when the ball touches, or is legally touched by, a player on the court after it is released by the thrower.

Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 1040156)

In regard to a throwin situation, I respectfully disagree.

If play is resumed by a throw-in, the clock must be started when the ball touches, or is legally touched by, a player on the court after it is released by the thrower.

It is illegal for a player to touch the ball, ring, or net while the ball is on the ring or within the basket. It is illegal for a player to touch the ball if it is in the imaginary cylinder above the ring. It is illegal for a player to touch the ball outside the cylinder while reaching through the basket from below.

These three examples of basket interference all involve illegal touches.

In a throwin situation, clock should not have started, and it should be reset if it was erroneously started.

Nevadaref: Any rulebook, casebook, or annual interpretation citations to further your cause?

Originally Posted by Nevadaref (Post 1040154)

If I’m the administering official, I’m chopping the clock and then blowing the whistle for the violation. Whatever time elapses before the timer can stop the clock is reasonable.

I believe that the NCAA rule is that a minimum of 0.3 seconds must come off the clock.

Originally Posted by SC Official (Post 1040166)

I’m with Billy. The ball must be touched legally for the clock to start and the throw-in to end. Touching the ball within the cylinder is not a legal touch. If time runs off the clock in my game we are correcting it.

Originally Posted by crosscountry55 (Post 1040158)

Important to point out that this is still not an NFHS rule. Yes, there is that interp from several years ago. But that’s it. It has never even appeared in the case book.

I don’t hate the interp. What I do hate is when it is misused or misunderstood. For example, I know too many officials who falsely use it as a reason to put 0.3 back on the clock when a shooting foul occurs right at the expiration of time for a period. As if they have a monitor in their head! Definite information is one thing; if you have a chance to look up and see ticks come after the whistle, that’s legit. But to arbitrarily put 0.3 on “just because” is wrong. You’d think there was something morally repulsive about having the free throws attempted with the lane spaces empty.

I get it: in the games we see on TV, the monitor can tell us the correct time, or prove that the foul occurred on the airborne shooter after an in-time release. We don’t have that luxury in high school. So without definite information, the time very well could expire on a bang-bang play. And there are rules and cases that tell us exactly how to handle that situation, none of which call for 0.3 to be put back on the clock.

Originally Posted by SC Official (Post 1040169)

Unfortunately at the college level, the philosophy is that you better put something back on the clock if you have a foul as time expires even if you’re not 100 percent sure. Hopefully someone has eyes on the clock as the whistle is blown so we can be supported under the “definite knowledge” rule. I’m very good at looking up at the clock on every whistle but I can’t say I’ve never been involved in putting a few tenths back on the clock “just because we have to.” It is frowned upon to shoot free throws with an empty lane.

It is a stupid philosophy that I’m not necessarily a fan of, but when in Rome...

Originally Posted by crosscountry55 (Post 1040168)

Even if you could argue the touch was legal, the violation is simultaneous to it. That means no time elapses.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by SC Official (Post 1040172)

99 percent of timers are not watching for a chop - they are watching the ball to see when it's touched, whether legally or not. In this situation more than likely you are going to have some time erroneously run off and you will need to fix the clock.

Originally Posted by billyu2 (Post 1040171)

As well, since the violation causes the ball to become dead immediately, why would an official chop to start the clock when the ball just became dead? The “hand up” is also used to prevent the timer from starting the clock. So in this situation the violation occurs, the official keeps the hand up to prevent the starting of the clock, whistles and communicates the violation.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust (Post 1040180)

You are assuming the administering official is the same as the one calling the violation. That may or may not be the case.

Originally Posted by SC Official (Post 1040169)

Unfortunately at the college level, the philosophy is that you better put something back on the clock if you have a foul as time expires even if you’re not 100 percent sure. Hopefully someone has eyes on the clock as the whistle is blown so we can be supported under the “definite knowledge” rule. I’m very good at looking up at the clock on every whistle but I can’t say I’ve never been involved in putting a few tenths back on the clock “just because we have to.” It is frowned upon to shoot free throws with an empty lane.

It is a stupid philosophy that I’m not necessarily a fan of, but when in Rome...

Originally Posted by bob jenkins (Post 1040139)

Already asked (but not answered) up in post #22.

And, if this had been an AP throw-in, would the arrow switch?

Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 1040141)

If the arrow doesn't switch on an illegal kick, I don't believe that it would switch on an illegal touch.