“Again to be clear...” Who died and made you the rule-giver?

I agree with your compelling argument that the BI is a legal touch in its own right, but you have not convinced me that a legal touch requires the consumption of playing time when it coincides with a violation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Would you care to cite some of these case book plays or rules that support your position?

Why are you speaking to me like it’s my philosophy I invented and advocate for? I specifically said I’m not a fan of it so I’m not sure why you’re spewing some nonsense about me bringing “college bravado” into high school game.

Or you could just be the Referee as only he is permitted to correct timing errors under NFHS rules.

The only R whose crew I’ve ever been on that was adamant we go to him first to correct the clock was a guy no one wanted to work with and no coaches wanted on their games.

I was speaking in general terms, not at you. Apologies if it came across that way. Ahh, the pitfalls of expressionless text!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I believe somebody posted up thread something about citations and lawyering ;)

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

That is cool. We can continue to have a discussion about it. Perhaps I will convince you or perhaps I won’t. Either way, it is always a pleasure to talk basketball officiating with you on this forum.

I’m not at home at the moment, but I’ll look up a few of them later and post them for everyone to see.

We already had this discussion with Nevada a few years ago and his was the only dissenting opinion in a courtroom with 50 judges.

He’s trying to sell it to us again but he forgets that the clientele in this forum is the same now as it was then!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I guess somebody here thinks one of the jumpers can grab a jump ball and the clock should start since the ball wasn't kicked or punched.

Would you trust that person to tell you when an AP arrow should or shouldn't be switched subsequent certain throw-ins?

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Yes, it should start. There is a segment of time which elapses prior to the official recognizing the violation and that should be time in a HS game. College and the NBA may have a different philosophy on such timing matters due to TV monitors and precision timing. The HS philosophy is that game action should be timed, unless a rule specifically states otherwise. One example, is a kicked ball violation on a throw-in. The NFHS made it explicitly clear several years ago that the clock was not to start on that.

I understand that I’m in the minority on this and that most people wouldn’t think twice about it being done either way as it is a small amount of time which isn’t going to impact the game, but that doesn’t make me incorrect, just overly precise.

There are certain duties that the R and not the U(s) should be doing. They are clearly listed in the rules. Having an R who actually adheres to the rules and does his duties doesn’t make him a jerk. One can handle things by the book in a nice way.

Generally the R is the most experienced or knowledgeable member of a crew and has been designated the R to display that through quality judgment in necessary situations. To have someone else step in and make those decisions probably isn’t best for the game or the postgame reports/complaints that may arise.

So I don’t see the problem with letting the designated person, the Referee, handle these matters. I do that when I’m am umpire. I will give the R info and he can apply it as he desires. When I’m the R, I listen to input from the U(s) and make the best decision that I can.

Personally, I wouldn’t want an Umpire correcting fouls or some other disputed item in the scorebook when I’m the R. That can only cause trouble for me.

NFHS Interps 2007-08
SITUATION 3: During an alternating-possession throw-in for Team A, thrower A1 passes the ball directly on the court where it contacts (a) A2 or (b) B2, while he/she is standing on a boundary line. RULING: Out-of-bounds violation on (a) A2; (b) B2. The player was touched by the ball while out of bounds, thereby ending the throw-in. The alternating-possession arrow is reversed and pointed toward Team B's basket when the throw-in ends (when A2/B2 is touched by the ball). A throw-in is awarded at a spot nearest the out-of-bounds violation for (a) Team B; (b) Team A. (4-42-5; 6-4-4; 9-2-2; 9-3-2)

Compare that play ruling to this one.

4.42.5 SITUATION: Team A is awarded an alternating- possession throw-in. A1’s throw-in pass is illegally kicked by B2. RULING: As a result of B2’s kicking violation, Team A is awarded a new throw-in at the designated spot nearest to where the kicking violation (illegal touching) occurred. Since the alternating-possession throw-in had not been contacted legally, the throw-in has not ended and therefore, the arrow remains with Team A for the next alternating-possession throw-in. COMMENT: The kicking violation ends the alternating-possession throw-in and as a result, a non- alternating-possession throw-in is administered. When the ball is legally touched on the subsequent throw-in following the kicking violation, the arrow shall not be changed and shall remain with Team A. (6-4-5)

Neither of those cases make any suggestion that time must come off the clock. The kick wouldn't, of course, but the touch while OOB is silent on the point. I think that only allows for the possibility of timing coming off the clock, not that time must come off the clock.