I blew it!

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Remove three-tenths of a second? Why?

You had to start all over again, didn't you? %$#@%^$#^!

Folks, please note that you can argue this one until the BoSox blow another year. Won't matter. There is NO definitive answer in the rule book for this type of play. It can be argued several ways, but not decisively.

I need a really good picture of a horse race here::

Aaannnnddd..... they're off!! (sounds of William Tell in the background)

It's Cabbage by a head..

Sniffles is leading by a nose..

It's down to the wire, there's a cloud of dust at the finish line, but it looks like... it could be ...

....it's BEETLEBOMB!!! (ta-da-ta-da-ta-da-TAAA-DDAAA!!!!)

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by rainmaker
[/B]

I need a really good picture of a horse race here::

Aaannnnddd..... they're off!! (sounds of William Tell in the background)

It's Cabbage by a head..

Sniffles is leading by a nose..

[/B][/QUOTE]It's Circumcision by a ......

[Jimgolf]

Doesn't rule 5-10 allow the referee to correct a timer's mistake? In this case the timer started the clock while the ball was not yet inbounds. Just because the referee caused him to make this mistake shouldn't prevent the referee from correcting the time.

The bigger issue is that the "surprise" play was blown by the ref's error. Re-starting the inbounds play doesn't restore the element of surprise. I can understand why zebraman is upset with himself, but under the circumstances I think his solution was the best anyone has a right to expect.

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

I need a really good picture of a horse race here::

Aaannnnddd..... they're off!! (sounds of William Tell in the background)

It's Cabbage by a head..

Sniffles is leading by a nose..

[/B]

It's Circumcision by a ...... [/B][/QUOTE]

watch it kid, your post is gonna get snipped

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
Remove three-tenths of a second? Why?

You had to start all over again, didn't you? %$#@%^$#^!

First of all, I didn't start it all over again.

Second of all, I would take 0.3 seconds off the clock (from the time that was showing at the beginning of the play) b/c 0.3 is the least amount of time that come off the clock when it is controlled. (That's why you can't control the ball and shoot with only 0.3 on the clock.)

Since it would unfairly penalize the offensive team to make them try their surprise play again -- when it already worked, with the exception of my error -- I would rule that the inbound pass was completed and controlled and then immediately blown dead. So obviously, you take the least amount of time off the clock allowed by rule and give the ball back to the offensive team at the spot nearest to where it was blown dead.

I honestly don't see why anybody has a problem with this interpretation.

[lrpalmer3]

Originally posted by ChuckElias
I honestly don't see why anybody has a problem with this interpretation.

And I honestly don't see why anyone would vote for....

[blindzebra]

Originally posted by Jimgolf
Doesn't rule 5-10 allow the referee to correct a timer's mistake? In this case the timer started the clock while the ball was not yet inbounds. Just because the referee caused him to make this mistake shouldn't prevent the referee from correcting the time.

The bigger issue is that the "surprise" play was blown by the ref's error. Re-starting the inbounds play doesn't restore the element of surprise. I can understand why zebraman is upset with himself, but under the circumstances I think his solution was the best anyone has a right to expect.

The timer did not make a mistake, there is no rule support to correct the time, adjust the time, or do the play over.

Either you envoke 2-3, The referee shall make decisions on any points not specifically covered in the rules, or the game is over, ala CB 5.10.1 Situation C.

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by ChuckElias

First of all, I didn't start it all over again.

Second of all, I would take 0.3 seconds off the clock (from the time that was showing at the beginning of the play) b/c 0.3 is the least amount of time that come off the clock when it is controlled. (That's why you can't control the ball and shoot with only 0.3 on the clock.)

Since it would unfairly penalize the offensive team to make them try their surprise play again -- when it already worked, with the exception of my error -- I would rule that the inbound pass was completed and controlled and then immediately blown dead. So obviously, you take the least amount of time off the clock allowed by rule and give the ball back to the offensive team at the spot nearest to where it was blown dead.

I honestly don't see why anybody has a problem with this interpretation.

Are you serious?

Let's recap:

A1 has the ball OOB, he legally passes the ball to A2 also OOB but you chop in time by mistake. Clock starts.

Now you're going to wait for A2 to inbound the ball, blow the whistle and TAKE OFF .3 seconds?

I dunno...but as they say before you leave that floor take a good look around, 'cause you aint ever gonna see THAT gym again.

Why not either blow it dead as soon as you see the clock start before the throw-in or leave it alone & hope for the best?

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by Dan_ref
Why not either blow it dead as soon as you see the clock start before the throw-in?

Absolutely. If you see the clock start first, you stop the whole thing. Sorry. My assumption was that the play was completed before the error was noticed (which is what happened in the other thread).

But I agree that if you see the clock running before the inbound pass, you should stop it right there.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

1) The fact is.....

2) If the game officials have definite knowledge that B3 dribbled the ball less than three seconds when the horn sounded then Team B gets the ball for a throw-in nearest the spot on the court where B3 was dribbling the ball when the horn sounded.

[/B]

1) Please replace "fact" with "my own personal theory". It most definitely is NOT a "fact" just because you happen to think something may be right! The only "fact" available on this one is that the rule book can be interpreted in different ways.

2) Ain't gonna get into this again except to say that I think you're consistent anyway. Wrong, but consistent.

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Jun 9th, 2004 at 10:16 AM] [/B][/QUOTE]



Juassic Referee:

It is not "my own personal theory" because it is NOT a "do over." Except for subsitute free throws and one situation in the NCAA Women's Rules (which I cannot think of at the moment and I have too many other things going at the moment to look it up), there are no "do overs" in NFHS, NCAA Men's/Women's, and FIBA (not counting the 1972 Olympics Gold Medal Game farce). So give it a rest. You cannot have a "do over."

MTD, Sr.

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by ChuckElias
My assumption was that the play was completed before the error was noticed (which is what happened in the other thread).

If the play has been completed then why just take off .3 seconds?

In effect you are putting ON whatever time came off erroneously minus .3 seconds.

Seems simpler to just reset everything & do it over than to explain why you're putting everything minus .3 seconds back on.

What am I missing?

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by Dan_ref
If the play has been completed then why just take off .3 seconds?

Because the play was completed as soon the ball was caught and controlled inbounds.

In effect you are putting ON whatever time came off erroneously minus .3 seconds.

That's exactly correct, b/c that's what I have definite knowledge of.

Seems simpler to just reset everything & do it over

Sure does. Unfortunately, there's no rule basis whatsoever for a do-over if the ball has already been inbounded. Once the ball is inbounded and controlled, then when you blow it dead, by rule, you have to resume play from the spot closest to where the ball was. So how can you possibly go back to the end line?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

1) Please replace "fact" with "my own personal theory". It most definitely is NOT a "fact" just because you happen to think something may be right! The only "fact" available on this one is that the rule book can be interpreted in different ways.

2) Ain't gonna get into this again except to say that I think you're consistent anyway. Wrong, but consistent.

[/B]

Juassic Referee:

It is not "my own personal theory" because it is NOT a "do over." Except for subsitute free throws and one situation in the NCAA Women's Rules (which I cannot think of at the moment and I have too many other things going at the moment to look it up), there are no "do overs" in NFHS, NCAA Men's/Women's, and FIBA (not counting the 1972 Olympics Gold Medal Game farce). So give it a rest. You cannot have a "do over."

[/B][/QUOTE]Are you kidding? No "do overs"? A1 has the ball OOB for a throw-in with 2 seconds left in the game, and throws a long pass in bounds to A2. While the ball is in the air, the horn goes off. Game over, right Mark, because there isn't any "do overs"? Oh, my!

[Dan_ref]

That's exactly correct, b/c that's what I have definite knowledge of.

OK, let's recap once more:

A1 takes ball out, passes to A2 OOB, clock improperly starts. A2 passes in to A3 (clock should have properly started now), dribble dribble shot...

...and you have definite knowledge of only .3 seconds?

Then how do you have definite knowledge that the clock started early?

Like I said...take a good look before you leave...

Sure does. Unfortunately, there's no rule basis whatsoever for a do-over if the ball has already been inbounded. Once the ball is inbounded and controlled, then when you blow it dead, by rule, you have to resume play from the spot closest to where the ball was. So how can you possibly go back to the end line?

I'm not arguing where you put the ball.

I'm arguing how you handle the clock.

[Camron Rust]

Originally posted by ChuckElias
Second of all, I would take 0.3 seconds off the clock (from the time that was showing at the beginning of the play) b/c 0.3 is the least amount of time that come off the clock when it is controlled. (That's why you can't control the ball and shoot with only 0.3 on the clock.)

Where do you get that interpretation? There is absolutely nothing that specifies the amount of time that must come off the clock when someone cotrols the ball. It only specifies how much time there must be to both control AND shoot. I assert that the shooting motion takes more than 0% of that time and probably the majority of the time.

I'm making no claim about what you should do in the actual situation at hand but am only commenting on the assertion that 0.3 must come off the clock.