End of quarter - "All related activity"

[crosscountry55]

It’s funny to me, if this foul/expiration of time scenario involved a shooting foul, we’d already be 30 posts deep into our debate about whether 0.3 seconds should be added to the clock so we can put players on the lane.

And yet in this PCF scenario, everyone here seems content to agree that since the timer isn’t a robot and couldn’t stop the clock in time, we allow time to remain expired.

What’s the difference?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

It’s funny to me, if this foul/expiration of time scenario involved a shooting foul, we’d already be 30 posts deep into our debate about whether 0.3 seconds should be added to the clock so we can put players on the lane. And yet in this PCF scenario, everyone here seems content to agree that since the timer isn’t a robot and couldn’t stop the clock in time, we allow time to remain expired. What’s the difference?

No procedure to add 0.3 seconds per NFHS rules, except with definite knowledge (of any amount of time), and with that there's nothing "magical" about 0.3 (except a tap not a catch and shoot).

I have absolutely no qualms about putting a shooter on the line with 0:00 and a buzzer (no rebounders) if I was sure that the foul happened before, or at, the horn. 0.3 would have never entered my mind.

Not sure about other rule sets (NBA, WNBA, NCAAM, NCAAW, FIBA)

[Mike Goodwin]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

It’s funny to me, if this foul/expiration of time scenario involved a shooting foul, we’d already be 30 posts deep into our debate about whether 0.3 seconds should be added to the clock so we can put players on the lane.

And yet in this PCF scenario, everyone here seems content to agree that since the timer isn’t a robot and couldn’t stop the clock in time, we allow time to remain expired.

What’s the difference?

Pure [speculation] here: those of us who remember "lag time" did not seem to have much of an issue adjusting to "definite knowledge" when it replaced "lag time" even though 5-6-2 Exception 3 still begins with, "If a foul occurs so near the expiration of time that the timer cannot get the clock stopped before time expires..."

Either that or it's 'contamination' from collegiate rules where they are allowed to put time back after video review under certain conditions. [/speculation]

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Mike Goodwin

Pure [speculation] here: those of us who remember "lag time" did not seem to have much of an issue adjusting to "definite knowledge" when it replaced "lag time" even though 5-6-2 Exception 3 still begins with, "If a foul occurs so near the expiration of time that the timer cannot get the clock stopped before time expires..."

Either that or it's 'contamination' from collegiate rules where they are allowed to put time back after video review under certain conditions. [/speculation]

"Definite Knowlege" existed with "Lag Time". The "Lag Time" provision just limited "Definite Knowledge" corrections to be no less than 1.0 seconds.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

It’s funny to me, if this foul/expiration of time scenario involved a shooting foul, we’d already be 30 posts deep into our debate about whether 0.3 seconds should be added to the clock so we can put players on the lane.

And yet in this PCF scenario, everyone here seems content to agree that since the timer isn’t a robot and couldn’t stop the clock in time, we allow time to remain expired.

What’s the difference?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

My mentee had an interesting play in a D3 game last week.

H-73 V-71 w/0:06 left in game. V1 ends up driving to the basket from slot side. H2 slides over near RA to draw a charge. V1 elevates and releases shot barely prior to LED/horn. After releasing shot and after LED/horn, H1 crashes into V2. V2 was both in the RA and did not have an LGP, so no question as to it being a block. My mentee puts his fist up but never blows his whistle.

It was a rare situation where even if they had a monitor, it would have been free throws w/the lane cleared and 0:00 on the clock because we had an airborne shooter who had released the try before, but was fouled after, the expiration of time.

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by Raymond

My mentee had an interesting play in a D3 game last week.

H-73 V-71 w/0:06 left in game. V1 ends up driving to the basket from slot side. H2 slides over near RA to draw a charge. V1 elevates and releases shot barely prior to LED/horn. After releasing shot and after LED/horn, H1 crashes into V2. V2 was both in the RA and did not have an LGP, so no question as to it being a block. My mentee puts his fist up but never blows his whistle.

It was a rare situation where even if they had a monitor, it would have been free throws w/the lane cleared and 0:00 on the clock because we had an airborne shooter who had released the try before, but was fouled after, the expiration of time.

Good example. That is the rare situation where that would happen at levels above NFHS. I think it even happened in an NBA playoff game last spring (though in this case on a jump shot from the corner).

That situation notwithstanding, the percolation of the “gotta put some time back on” philosophy to the NFHS game—even without definite information—is something that annoys me. I agree with BM on this one. There’s no NFHS rules support for this, but even my own rules interpreter insists that there is.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Raymond

My mentee had an interesting play in a D3 game last week.

H-73 V-71 w/0:06 left in game. V1 ends up driving to the basket from slot side. H2 slides over near RA to draw a charge. V1 elevates and releases shot barely prior to LED/horn. After releasing shot and after LED/horn, H1 crashes into V2. V2 was both in the RA and did not have an LGP, so no question as to it being a block. My mentee puts his fist up but never blows his whistle.

It was a rare situation where even if they had a monitor, it would have been free throws w/the lane cleared and 0:00 on the clock because we had an airborne shooter who had released the try before, but was fouled after, the expiration of time.

And a perfect example showing that the idea that you must have time on the clock if you have foul with FTs is just not true.

[ilyazhito]

The related activity is reporting the foul. Since related activity for period 2 had not yet ended, intermission had not started, and the player who mouthed off is still a player. The technical foul and free throws are shot as part of the 3rd period, and Team B gets possession regardless of the arrow. The arrow is used for the next AP throw-in.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by ilyazhito

The related activity is reporting the foul. Since related activity for period 2 had not yet ended, intermission had not started, and the player who mouthed off is still a player. The technical foul and free throws are shot as part of the 3rd period, and Team B gets possession regardless of the arrow. The arrow is used for the next AP throw-in.

Reference?

Either way, the rest of your statement is again incorrect.

If period 2 has not ended, then the FTs are shot as part of period 2, there is no throw-in for the T and period 3 starts with the "normal" AP throw-in.

Or, period 2 has ended and period 3 starts with the FTs for the T and the throw-in for the T.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

... when did the quarter end ... after the foul is reported?

Originally Posted by ilyazhito

The related activity is reporting the foul.

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Reference?

Interesting take on this situation (no free throws due to player control foul).

Worthy of further discussion?

Ball can't get deader than dead? Dead is dead? Right?

Seems pretty binary. Only two choices. Dead. Or live.

5-6 Exceptions:
2. If a held ball or violation occurs so near the expiration of time that the clock is not stopped before time expires, the quarter or extra period ends with the held ball or violation.
3. If a foul occurs so near the expiration of time that the timer cannot get the clock stopped before time expires or after time expires, but while the ball is in flight during a try or tap for field goal, the quarter or extra period ends when the free throw(s) and all related activity have been completed. No penalty or part of a penalty carries over from one quarter or extra period to the next, except when a correctable error, as in 2-10, is rectified.
4. If a technical foul occurs after the ball has become dead to end a quarter or extra period, the next quarter or extra period is started by administering the free throws. This applies when the foul occurs after any quarter has ended, including the fourth quarter, provided there is to be an extra period.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Interesting take on this situation (no free throws due to player control foul).

...

End of 3rd Quarter. Airborne A1 releases try before horn, crashes into defender after horn. PCF is ruled. As Ref is reporting foul, which is A1's 5th, A1 yells out "that was bullsh!t".

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by ilyazhito

The related activity is reporting the foul.

No, it isn't. Reporting is a scorekeeping task, not a related activity. Related activities are things that occur in the game itself, not what the officials do. Related activity is anything that happens with the FTs, like a FT violation, or a timeout taken before the FTs are completed.


The moment the ball becomes dead and there are no FTs pending, the quarter is over and anything that happens is now part of the next quarter.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

The moment the ball becomes dead and there are no FTs pending, the quarter is over and anything that happens is now part of the next quarter.

Nicely and simply stated. I agree, but others may not.

[ilyazhito]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

No, it isn't. Reporting is a scorekeeping task, not a related activity. Related activities are things that occur in the game itself, not what the officials do. Related activity is anything that happens with the FTs, like a FT violation, or a timeout taken before the FTs are completed.


The moment the ball becomes dead and there are no FTs pending, the quarter is over and anything that happens is now part of the next quarter.

Related activity is not defined in the rulebook, so either of us might be right. If the quarter is over, then by rule the players become bench personnel, and the coach would have to sit in the 3rd quarter, because all team members are bench personnel during an intermission. Do you want to go this route?

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by ilyazhito

Related activity is not defined in the rulebook, so either of us might be right. If the quarter is over, then by rule the players become bench personnel, and the coach would have to sit in the 3rd quarter, because all team members are bench personnel during an intermission. Do you want to go this route?

For what it’s worth, I agree with Camron. Those of us who have been officiating much longer than you, have a better sense of what the NFHS means by certain phrases in the rules book. Of course, the veterans can be incorrect from time to time, but we definitely have more experience working with these rules and their language.

Yes, I would consider the player to now be bench personnel and assess an indirect to the HC as part of the penalty.

(Note: BillyMac, find the song reference in this post!)