FED Exam Strikes Again

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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.

On a throwin, if the first player to touch the ball after the throwin pass is made is out of bounds, that's an illegal touch.

Clock should not have started, and it should be reset if it was erroneously started.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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?

I wouldn't expect any answer in regards to a citation, but I would expect a lot of lawyering.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[SC Official]

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.

[SC Official]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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.

Yeah, when the ball is touched legally. A ball touched within the cylinder is not a legal touch.

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by SC Official

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.

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

[SC Official]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

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.

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...

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by SC Official

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...

Agree...What if there was 0.001 seconds really left when the foul occurred? It is certainly possible, albeit impossible to tell too. Putting time back just because it feels good is silly. It only shows that whoever dreamt that up really hasn't actually thought about it.

[billyu2]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

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

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.

[SC Official]

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.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by SC Official

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.

Agree.

[SNIPERBBB]

If it were true that you must take time off for an illegally touching the call, coaches would be having their players try to illegally touch the throwins at the end of the game if they have the lead.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by billyu2

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.

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

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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

Agree. Even so, you get together, discuss it, and reset the clock.

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by SC Official

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...

100% ok with doing it that way in your college game. Just please, if we’re working a high school game, don’t bring that college bravado with you and cause a scene at the end of a period.

I’ve had partners willing to go to blows on the court over this. They were all college guys who were certain they were correct when they were indeed not correct. Usually the best thing to do for the game is to capitulate and talk it over later. But I hate every time that happens.

I guess I need to start pregaming this.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

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

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

Bob brought up this point and it correctly illustrates what the NFHS means by an illegal touch of the ball.

If there is an AP throw-in by Team A from the front court sideline with 8.4 seconds remaining in the game and the first touch of the passed ball occurs when B1 bats the ball out of the imaginary cylinder above the basket, would the AP-arrow switch?

The answer is yes. We have case book plays instructing us to switch the arrow when the first touch of a throw-in pass is by a player who has one foot touching out of bounds. This is the same thing. The player is contacting the ball while simultaneously committing a violation.

Again to be clear, the only illegal touches which do not start the clock or switch the arrow are a kick or punch of the ball. All other touchings of the ball are legal touches. The illegal act is the commission of some violation separate from the manner in which the ball is touched.