FED Exam Strikes Again

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by ilyazhito

If the ball was illegally touched by B, causing basket interference, the game clock should not have started. B would receive the ball with a throw-in from the endline with time remaining due to the awarded points. If B legally swatted the ball while it was outside the cylinder, game over, B wins.

That is incorrect under NFHS rules. A touching which causes BI needs to be timed. You cannot say that it occurs with no time coming off the clock.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

That is incorrect under NFHS rules. A touching which causes BI needs to be timed. You cannot say that it occurs with no time coming off the clock.

I wouldn't quite say that. I would say that it "may" be timed. If the official administering the throw is also the one calling the BI, they'd never chop time in, thus it is possible no time would come off the clock. That would be valid since the instant it is touched to cause BI it also causes the ball to become dead. However, it is also possible that two different officials may be involved where one indicates time should start and the other whistles the BI causing it to stop. It wouldn't be an error for the timer to start and stop it in that case.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I wouldn't quite say that. I would say that it "may" be timed. If the official administering the throw is also the one calling the BI, they'd never chop time in, thus it is possible no time would come off the clock. That would be valid since the instant it is touched to cause BI it also causes the ball to become dead. However, it is also possible that two different officials may be involved where one indicates time should start and the other whistles the BI causing it to stop. It wouldn't be an error for the timer to start and stop it in that case.

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.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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

Yes, if the ball is legally touched. I cannot find that term defined.

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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.

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.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

... there is that interp from several years ago ...

2009-10 Basketball Rules Interpretations
SITUATION 11: Team B scores a goal to take the lead by one point. A1 immediately requests and is granted a timeout with three seconds remaining in the fourth quarter. Following the time-out, Team A is awarded the ball for a throw-in from anywhere along the end line. A1 passes the ball to A2, who is also outside the boundary; A2 passes the ball to A1 who is inbounds and running the length of the court. The timer mistakenly starts the clock when A2 touches A1’s pass while standing outside the boundary. An official notices the clock starting on A2’s touch (a), before A2 releases the throw-in pass to A1, (b), while A2’s throw-in pass is in flight to A1, or (c), as soon as A1 catches the throw-in pass. RULING: This is an obvious timing mistake and may be corrected. In (a) and (b), the official shall blow the whistle, stop play and direct the timer to put three seconds on the game clock. Since the throw-in had not ended, play is resumed with a Team A throw-in from anywhere along the end line. In (c), the official may put the correct time on the clock, but must make some allowance for the touching by A1 – likely 10ths of a second, if displayed. The ball is put in play nearest to where it was located when the stoppage occurred to correct the timing mistake. A “do over” is not permitted in (c), since the throw-in had ended. (4-36; 5-10-1)

[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.

[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.

[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

[SC Official]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

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

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.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

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

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

[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.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

A touching which causes BI needs to be timed. You cannot say that it occurs with no time coming off the clock.

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?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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

Unfortunately, this casebook play doesn't give us any information about timing:

9.11.2 SITUATION C: Since it is a violation for thrower A1 to throw the ball directly into the basket from out of bounds, what happens if B1 touches the throw-in pass while the ball is in the cylinder above A’s basket? RULING: B1 is charged with basket interference and a two-point goal is scored. Team B is awarded the ball for a throw-in anywhere along the end lines as after a scored goal except the official shall place the ball at the disposal of a player of Team B for a throw-in from any point outside the end line. (4-6)

1996 NFHS Interpretations
SITUATION #16: Since it is a violation for thrower Al to throw the ball directly into the basket from out-of-bounds, what happens, if Bi touches the throw in pass while the ball is in the cylinder above A’s basket?
RULING: Bl is charged with basket interference and a 2-point goal is scored. Team B is awarded the ball for a throw-in anywhere along the end line as after a scored goal except the official shall place the ball at, the disposal of a player of Team B, for a throw-in from any point outside the end line. (9-2-7; 9414)