Strange Case Continued ...

[BillyMac]

That sure was fun. Let's move on to another example.

NFHS rules in the current rulebook only allow officials to change the clock with "definite” knowledge (observe clock, ten second count, three second count, five second count, mental end of period count, mental count of any type).

There is only one very specific situation that I am aware of that allows officials to "guess" or "estimate" (no actual count of any type) to change the clock, and it's not in rule language in the current rulebook.

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)

It's only a one and done annual interpretation, it's not in the rule language in the current rulebook (can't show it to a coach), it's twelve years old, and there have been no relevant rule changes, or interpretation changes, over the past twelve years.

Is it still valid; or is it invalid, null, and void.