Clock Improperly Starts-Throw In Spot

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Indianaref

SITUATION 5 (Inadvertent Whistle): During a designated-spot throw-in by Team A in its frontcourt, the covering official inadvertently blows the whistle before the throw-in is: (a) completed (legally touched by another player inbounds) (b) controlled by a player on the court after it was deflected by B1. In (a), the ball is returned to Team A for a throw-in at the original designated spot using the point of interruption (POI) procedure. If, instead of an inadvertent whistle, the stoppage had resulted from another POI situation — such as a double foul or simultaneous foul during the throw-in — the same ruling would apply. Team A would retain the ball for a throw-in from the original throw-in spot. In (b), Team A maintains control of the ball and will be awarded a throw-in at one of the four designated spots nearest where the ball was located when the inadvertent whistle occurred. If, instead of an inadvertent whistle, the stoppage had resulted from another POI situation — such as a double foul or simultaneous foul— the same ruling would apply. RULING: Correct procedure. COMMENT: In any situation where play is interrupted without clear team control — whether by inadvertent whistle, double foul or simultaneous foul — officials return the ball to the team that was in control at the point of interruption. On a throwin, team control begins at disposal and continues until there is player control by either team on the court. Therefore, Team A maintains its throw-in privilege in each of these scenarios. (4-36-1; 4-36- 2a, b; 7-5-2)

Nice citation Indianaref. Thanks.

I'm not sure if this is a "full do over" because in (b) the clock isn't reset.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Indianaref

This situation from 25-26 interpretations says to return ball to original throw in spot.

SITUATION 5 (Inadvertent Whistle): During a designated-spot throw-in by Team A in its frontcourt, the covering official inadvertently blows the whistle before the throw-in is: (a) completed (legally touched by another player inbounds) (b) controlled by a player on the court after it was deflected by B1. In (a), the ball is returned to Team A for a throw-in at the original designated spot using the point of interruption (POI) procedure. If, instead of an inadvertent whistle, the stoppage had resulted from another POI situation — such as a double foul or simultaneous foul during the throw-in — the same ruling would apply. Team A would retain the ball for a throw-in from the original throw-in spot. In (b), Team A maintains control of the ball and will be awarded a throw-in at one of the four designated spots nearest where the ball was located when the inadvertent whistle occurred. If, instead of an inadvertent whistle, the stoppage had resulted from another POI situation — such as a double foul or simultaneous foul— the same ruling would apply. RULING: Correct procedure. COMMENT: In any situation where play is interrupted without clear team control — whether by inadvertent whistle, double foul or simultaneous foul — officials return the ball to the team that was in control at the point of interruption. On a throwin, team control begins at disposal and continues until there is player control by either team on the court. Therefore, Team A maintains its throw-in privilege in each of these scenarios. (4-36-1; 4-36- 2a, b; 7-5-2)

Huh? Who wrote that? There is clearly team control by the throwing team. Poor choice of words that only confuses the situation and correct ruling.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

There is clearly team control by the throwing team. Poor choice of words that only confuses the situation and correct ruling.

Probably refers to the situations where team control only exists for the purpose of calling team control fouls on inbounds plays.

NFHS has struggled with the language regarding such (i.e., backcourt) since day one.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

There are NO! Let me repeat myself: There are NO! 'do overs' in NFHS and NCAA Men's/Women's Basketball Rules! End of the discussion!

This topic has been discussed ad nauseum many times in this Forum and an Advanced Search for this topic and my name will bring up every one of these discussions some of which are almost twenty years old.

MTD, Sr.

P.S.: This is not the Men's Basketball Gold Medal Game in the 1972 Summer Olympiad!

P.P.S.: Tim Cloughery is the son of Youngstown State University alum and retired ACC Coordinator of Men's Basketball Officials, John Clougherty. Go Penguins!!

Originally Posted by Indianaref

This situation from 25-26 interpretations says to return ball to original throw in spot.

SITUATION 5 (Inadvertent Whistle): During a designated-spot throw-in by Team A in its frontcourt, the covering official inadvertently blows the whistle before the throw-in is: (a) completed (legally touched by another player inbounds) (b) controlled by a player on the court after it was deflected by B1. In (a), the ball is returned to Team A for a throw-in at the original designated spot using the point of interruption (POI) procedure. If, instead of an inadvertent whistle, the stoppage had resulted from another POI situation — such as a double foul or simultaneous foul during the throw-in — the same ruling would apply. Team A would retain the ball for a throw-in from the original throw-in spot. In (b), Team A maintains control of the ball and will be awarded a throw-in at one of the four designated spots nearest where the ball was located when the inadvertent whistle occurred. If, instead of an inadvertent whistle, the stoppage had resulted from another POI situation — such as a double foul or simultaneous foul— the same ruling would apply. RULING: Correct procedure. COMMENT: In any situation where play is interrupted without clear team control — whether by inadvertent whistle, double foul or simultaneous foul — officials return the ball to the team that was in control at the point of interruption. On a throwin, team control begins at disposal and continues until there is player control by either team on the court. Therefore, Team A maintains its throw-in privilege in each of these scenarios. (4-36-1; 4-36- 2a, b; 7-5-2)

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Huh? Who wrote that? There is clearly team control by the throwing team. Poor choice of words that only confuses the situation and correct ruling.

👍

Not to mention, that no where in the POI Rule does it mention before the Throw-in Ends! The POI Rule only mentions the Location of the Ball at the time of the Inadvertent Whistle.

And let us not forget, the Situation in the video was not an Inadvertent Whistle.

MTD, Sr.

[Indianaref]

Here's another new case play, totally disagree with not taking at least .03 off the clock.

4.12.2 SITUATION C: With 3.9 seconds remaining in the fourth quarter, A1's throw-in pass is deflected into the air by B1. While the ball is in the air, an official inadvertently sounds their whistle. After the whistle, the game clock still shows 3.9 seconds remaining in the quarter. RULING: The clock shall remain at 3.9 seconds, with Team A awarded a throw-in at the out-of-bounds spot nearest to where the ball was deflected by B1. While the ball remains live, a loose ball always remains in control of the team whose player last had control. Team A maintained control, and it will be awarded a throw-in nearest to where the ball last was in contact with a player on the court when the whistle sounded. The officials would not have rule support to take time off the clock as no player on the court ever gained control of the ball (4-12-4, 4-36-2a, 4-42-5a).

[bob jenkins]

I agree that this case play should be revised (and that officials should always have a count to justify it).

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Indianaref

Here's another new case play, totally disagree with not taking at least .03 off the clock.

4.12.2 SITUATION C: With 3.9 seconds remaining in the fourth quarter, A1's throw-in pass is deflected into the air by B1. While the ball is in the air, an official inadvertently sounds their whistle. After the whistle, the game clock still shows 3.9 seconds remaining in the quarter. RULING: The clock shall remain at 3.9 seconds, with Team A awarded a throw-in at the out-of-bounds spot nearest to where the ball was deflected by B1. While the ball remains live, a loose ball always remains in control of the team whose player last had control. Team A maintained control, and it will be awarded a throw-in nearest to where the ball last was in contact with a player on the court when the whistle sounded. The officials would not have rule support to take time off the clock as no player on the court ever gained control of the ball (4-12-4, 4-36-2a, 4-42-5a).

That is why the "definite knowledge" reference is dumb from the NF if you tell us that time cannot come off the clock on something like this. You could set a baseline like the NCAA, too, and just say at the very least, .3 is enough if the clock did not start, but it is also reasonable to take off more time in something like this as well. But 3.9 cannot be the answer when we know the clock was supposed to start.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

... officials should always have a count to justify it).

Except in 2009-10 Basketball Rules Interpretations SITUATION 11 (see above post).

Only situation that I'm aware of where a "guesstimate" (not definite knowledge) is allowed.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Except in 2009-10 Basketball Rules Interpretations SITUATION 11 (see above post).

Only situation that I'm aware of where a "guesstimate" (not definite knowledge) is allowed.

Even definite knowledge is not actual definite knowledge.

Peace

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Indianaref

Here's another new case play, totally disagree with not taking at least .03 off the clock.

4.12.2 SITUATION C: With 3.9 seconds remaining in the fourth quarter, A1's throw-in pass is deflected into the air by B1. While the ball is in the air, an official inadvertently sounds their whistle. After the whistle, the game clock still shows 3.9 seconds remaining in the quarter. RULING: The clock shall remain at 3.9 seconds, with Team A awarded a throw-in at the out-of-bounds spot nearest to where the ball was deflected by B1. While the ball remains live, a loose ball always remains in control of the team whose player last had control. Team A maintained control, and it will be awarded a throw-in nearest to where the ball last was in contact with a player on the court when the whistle sounded. The officials would not have rule support to take time off the clock as no player on the court ever gained control of the ball (4-12-4, 4-36-2a, 4-42-5a).

Actually, Team A should be awarded a throw-in at the nearest of the eight designated spots to where the Team B player touched the ball.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Actually, Team A should be awarded a throw-in at the nearest of the eight designated spots to where the Team B player touched the ball.

Another eight spots, or closest spot, decision.

I know that most of you guys feel really comfortable with this two year old rule, but I really hate it.

I easily adjusted to the new three point arc (instead of the rocket ship trapezoid) this year (I can actually see the lines on the floor), and I eventually adjusted to the new backcourt endline "bounce the ball across the lane" mechanic, but after forty three years of "muscle memory" with closest designated spots, I really don't need any more additional "decisions" to be made in my games.

I already make enough decisions.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Another eight spots, or closest spot, decision.

I know that most of you guys feel really comfortable with this two year old rule, but I really hate it.

I easily adjusted to the new three point arc (instead of the rocket ship trapezoid) this year (I can actually see the lines on the floor), and I eventually adjusted to the new backcourt endline "bounce the ball across the lane" mechanic, but after forty three years of "muscle memory" with closest designated spots, I really don't need any more additional "decisions" to be made in my games.

I already make enough decisions.

So you like making decisions based on a feel of where the ball should go? Not the hard and fast lines of the 3-point line? Sorry, not hard at all. Very easy if you just know where the violation or foul or even stoppage of play took place. Rarely is this much of a debate as before it was often a debate.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

So you like making decisions based on a feel of where the ball should go? Not the hard and fast lines of the 3-point line?

Maybe I wasn't clear.

Adjusting to the 3-point line, and bouncing the ball across the lane, were easy for an "old dog" like me.

The four and then eight spots were (and still are) diffcult for me.

Not in the "general sense" (I get the general guidelines, out of bounds versus "everything" else), but with specific "weird" situations that involve some "decision making", such as the recent post by Nevadaref (4.12.2 SITUATION C) where even the NFHS was wrong and it took two days for only Nevadaref to spot the mistake, while the rest of us (including me) just "let it slide".

Before the eight spots we made "decisions based on a feel of where the ball should go", was so elegantly stated by JRutledge.

The "feel" was really simple, the closest spot.

Nevermore.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

... with specific "weird" situations that involve some "decision making", such as the recent post by Nevadaref where even the NFHS was wrong and it took two days for only Nevadaref to spot the mistake, while the rest of us (including me) just "let it slide".

Making a mistake on eight spots or closest spot in the first period of an early December blowout game probably isn't a big deal.

Making a mistake on eight spots or closest spot (possibly a twenty-five plus foot difference) in the last ten seconds of a one point game in late February can be a big deal.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Maybe I wasn't clear.

Adjusting to the 3-point line, and bouncing the ball across the lane, were easy for an "old dog" like me.

The four and then eight spots were (and still are) diffcult for me.

Not in the "general sense" (I get the general guidelines, out of bounds versus "everything" else), but with specific "weird" situations that involve some "decision making", such as the recent post by Nevadaref (4.12.2 SITUATION C) where even the NFHS was wrong and it took two days for only Nevadaref to spot the mistake, while the rest of us (including me) just "let it slide".

Before the eight spots we made "decisions based on a feel of where the ball should go", as was so elegently stated by JRutledge.

The "feel" was really simple, the closest spot.

Nevermore.

Literally, now a clear line of demarcation is very simple to get. Never said it was impossible not to make a mistake or to have some confusion. But that is no different than before in many cases.

Peace