FED Exam Strikes Again

[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.

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by SC Official

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.

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

[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

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.

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by SC Official

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.

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

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by SC Official

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.

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.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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.

I agree with you as to there being certain duties that are the responsibility of the R. I pregame about informing me first if there needs to be a change to the book or score when I'm the R. And when I'm not the R, I go to my crew chief first with such information.

However, it is a faulty assumption to state the R is usually the most knowledgeable member of the crew. I might give you most experienced as the "usual", but definitely not usually the most knowledgeable.

[SC Official]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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.

"If you notice a clock error, get it fixed. I don't need you to come to me first."

That is the line used by almost every R in almost every pregame I've ever been in. Correcting the clock is not a "quality judgment."

In the case of the maverick official I referred to earlier, the only thing he was good at was taking the tests and memorizing the books. In South Carolina, that was good enough to be an R on some of the best games in the state. Once we got on the court he had no idea how to apply the intent of the rules, no play-calling skills, no concept of game management, and no ability to communicate with coaches and players. Guess which kind of official 99% of us would rather work with?