last second shot

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Back In The Saddle
Where is our physicist in residence when you need him? JugglingReferee, you claim that the referee cannot have definite knowledge that the tap took less than 0.3 seconds. 0.3 seconds is the empirically determined minimum time it takes to catch and shoot.

A tap, on the other hand, is "the contacting of the ball with any part of the player's hand(s) in an attempt to direct the ball into his/her basket." In other words, you've got a ball in the air and you are striking it to redirect it. Assuming the player does not do a one-handed catch and release (which can be done in 0.3 seconds), you've got to consider the tap to be pretty much instantaneous. At the very least you cannot logically consider that it takes 0.3 seconds or longer.

NV asserts that counting the goal is within the spirit of the rule that allows the referee to "correct obvious timing errors." I agree with him. I can't find it at the moment, but as I recall the statement about an official's count being definite knowledge is not meant to indicate that it's the only way an official can have definite knowledge.

For example, if the two scorekeepers disagree on how many fouls a player has, they are allowed to correct this error by resorting to memory or logic to acheive "definite knowledge." It's not an exact analog, but does demonstrate that the rules writers intended the officials to use all knowledge at their disposal to correct an error.

In every case I can find, points scored during an error or disagreement by an official (correctable error situation, timer/scorer disagree, disqualified player allowed to continue playing), the basket stands.

Case 2.13 is particualarly telling in how the rules committee would think about this. If the signal cannot be heard, and the scorer and timer disagree, the referee will make the final ruling. Unless the referee has definite knowledge to the contrary, the goal shall count if it was successful.

In this case, we have an obvious timing error occurred. The referee is empowered to correct an obvious timing error. By emperical study it is definitely possible to catch and release a try in 0.3 seconds. A tap can definitely be accomplished in much less time since it involves only striking a ball already in the air. The rules committee is definitely in favor of counting the goal when in doubt.

One last thought. What does it mean to correct a timing mistake? It means to make it right, to fix it. Different situations may very well require different actions to correct. Whatever definition you apply, taking away a one-in-a-hundred basket for some mytical do-over is not correcting the mistake. It is making another one.

Well thought out response.

However.....

Rule 6-7-6- "The ball becomes dead or remains dead when time expires for a quarter or extra period". The horn went and time expired BEFORE the ball was tapped in this particular case. There is NO exception listed at the end of R6-7 that is applicable here- the exceptions listed pertain to a try or tap already in flight when the horn sounds. Rule 5-1-1 also basically says that you can only score with a live ball- NOT a dead ball.

How can you ignore these clearly written rules?

If the horn went, and A2 was then fouled on his tap after the horn went off, would you put A1 on the line for 2 FT's if the tap didn't go in?

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

If you read my statements again, I'm not saying that the situation being discussed is a "correctible error", or is it governed by the correctible error rule. I'm saying that the rule book does allow for "do-overs". Iow, I don't agree with Nevada's blanket statement- and I still don't agree with it.

And maybe you also could please enlighten me as to what you would call cancelling a FT and then repeating the exact SAME FT if it's not "a stinkin' do-over"?

Okay, my apologies for suggesting you were calling it a correctable error situation.

It is not the "exact SAME FT". The rules provide that the penalty for a shooting foul is that the offended player must shoot free throws at his/her own basket. If the official permits the wrong player to attempt the throws or at the wrong basket, the official has not provided the specified rememedy. He has done something else entirely. The world is still waiting for the penalty to be enforced. Finally putting the correct shooter at the line, or the shooter at the correct basket is not a do-over. It is simply enforcing the rules.

You can argue that if it's not corrected, the points stand. And you'd be right. But that's just allowing the error to persist. It still doesn't imply that fixing the error is any kind of "do-over"

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Back In The Saddle

Okay, my apologies for suggesting you were calling it a correctable error situation.

It is not the "exact SAME FT". The rules provide that the penalty for a shooting foul is that the offended player must shoot free throws at his/her own basket. If the official permits the wrong player to attempt the throws or at the wrong basket, the official has not provided the specified rememedy. He has done something else entirely. The world is still waiting for the penalty to be enforced. Finally putting the correct shooter at the line, or the shooter at the correct basket is not a do-over. It is simply enforcing the rules.

You can argue that if it's not corrected, the points stand. And you'd be right. But that's just allowing the error to persist. It still doesn't imply that fixing the error is any kind of "do-over"

If A1 shoots a successful FT, and the scorer then immediately signals to tell you that A2 should have been the proper shooter, if you don't have a "do-over" with A2 shooting a repeat FT(with all the trimmings- line-up,etc.), then what do you have instead?

Do we have different definitions of what a "do-over" actually is? I think that it is just simply repeating a play from the beginning. You?

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Well thought out response.

However.....

Rule 6-7-6- "The ball becomes dead or remains dead when time expires for a quarter or extra period". The horn went and time expired BEFORE the ball was tapped in this particular case. There is NO exception listed at the end of R6-7 that is applicable here- the exceptions listed pertain to a try or tap already in flight when the horn sounds. Rule 5-1-1 also basically says that you can only score with a live ball- NOT a dead ball.

How can you ignore these clearly written rules?

If the horn went, and A2 was then fouled on his tap after the horn went off, would you put A1 on the line for 2 FT's if the tap didn't go in?

I would only have a problem with this IF there was an obvious timing error.

If there is an obvious timing error, then has the quarter really ended?

If the timer mistakenly allows the clock to run during a time out and time expires before they return to the floor, is the quarter over? How about if it runs during a free throw? So why would it be over during a throw-in?

If it happened during the time out, I'm gonna put some time back on the clock then we resume play. I'll also count on not going varisty this year for my lack of "clock awareness".

If it happens during a free throw, I will put time back on the clock, and may even give the thrower another throw if I think the horn disconcerted him. (okay, you may have me here on the do-over thing )

In this situation, I can see no clear way of making it right without counting the basket.

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
If A1 shoots a successful FT, and the scorer then immediately signals to tell you that A2 should have been the proper shooter, if you don't have a "do-over" with A2 shooting a repeat FT(with all the trimmings- line-up,etc.), then what do you have instead?

Do we have different definitions of what a "do-over" actually is? I think that it is just simply repeating a play from the beginning. You?

Perhaps we suffer from differing definitions If, for whatever bizzare reason, A1 were required to attempt the free-throw again, that the original one didn't count, I'd consider that a do-over. But I find it difficult to call it doing over when you are doing something different (i.e., putting a different player at the line).

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Back In The Saddle

Perhaps we suffer from differing definitions If, for whatever bizzare reason, A1 were required to attempt the free-throw again, that the original one didn't count, I'd consider that a do-over. But I find it difficult to call it doing over when you are doing something different (i.e., putting a different player at the line).

Yeah, we probably do have duelling definitions here. I'm talking about a "do-over' as repeating the complete ACT- whether that act is a FT, throw-in,etc.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Back In The Saddle

[/B]

In this situation, I can see no clear way of making it right without counting the basket. [/B][/QUOTE]I also would hate like hell to see a great play penalized by someone's mistake- especially a minor official. The problem is that there isn't really a definitive ruling on this play, as far as I know. Until we get one, all we can do is argue the different positions that we have- without anybody's opinion really being any more valid than someone else's differing opinion might be.

Interesting play though. You just hopelikehell that it doesn't happen while you're on the floor.

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

In this situation, I can see no clear way of making it right without counting the basket. [/B]

I also would hate like hell to see a great play penalized by someone's mistake- especially a minor official. The problem is that there isn't really a definitive ruling on this play, as far as I know. Until we get one, all we can do is argue the different positions that we have- without anybody's opinion really being any more valid than someone else's differing opinion might be.

Interesting play though. You just hopelikehell that it doesn't happen while you're on the floor.

[/B][/QUOTE]Shhhh, with talk like that, Murphey will make sure it happens while an evaluator is watching!

[JugglingReferee]

Originally posted by Back In The Saddle
Where is our physicist in residence when you need him? JugglingReferee, you claim that the referee cannot have definite knowledge that the tap took less than 0.3 seconds. 0.3 seconds is the empirically determined minimum time it takes to catch and shoot.

I thought 0.4 was the minimum time needed to catch and shoot. At 0.3, catching and shooting is not possible. Only a tap is permissible.

A tap, on the other hand, is "the contacting of the ball with any part of the player's hand(s) in an attempt to direct the ball into his/her basket." In other words, you've got a ball in the air and you are striking it to redirect it. Assuming the player does not do a one-handed catch and release (which can be done in 0.3 seconds), you've got to consider the tap to be pretty much instantaneous. At the very least you cannot logically consider that it takes 0.3 seconds or longer.

Everyone's definition of simply redirecting the ball is different. Some officials will allow for more prolonged contact with the ball, others less.

In each case, the only consistent tool available to us to make the correct call is that the clock started correctly and that the contact with the ball ended before the buzzer sounded.

You might say that he touched the ball for less than 0.3s and the basket counts, but let's say that replay shows that that is not the case. Now you, the referee, has decided the game. And not anyone else. What tool did you use? Nothing consistent.

NV asserts that counting the goal is within the spirit of the rule that allows the referee to "correct obvious timing errors." I agree with him. I can't find it at the moment, but as I recall the statement about an official's count being definite knowledge is not meant to indicate that it's the only way an official can have definite knowledge.

For example, if the two scorekeepers disagree on how many fouls a player has, they are allowed to correct this error by resorting to memory or logic to acheive "definite knowledge." It's not an exact analog, but does demonstrate that the rules writers intended the officials to use all knowledge at their disposal to correct an error.

In these cases, one official will likely be reminded of a foul that he forgot about. Maybe he originally mis-heard who the foul was on. The only hiccup comes about when two differing official scorebooks have different information. (I've never heard of two official scorekeepers, only one.)

In every case I can find, points scored during an error or disagreement by an official (correctable error situation, timer/scorer disagree, disqualified player allowed to continue playing), the basket stands.

Case 2.13 is particualarly telling in how the rules committee would think about this. If the signal cannot be heard, and the scorer and timer disagree, the referee will make the final ruling. Unless the referee has definite knowledge to the contrary, the goal shall count if it was successful.

I think this is because the Fed does not allow for protests or video replay. Saying the basket counts or the foul stands is the easy way out. In actuality, the basket might not have been good, but to implement aids to determine what actually happened is too much time and money at the Fed level.

One last thought. What does it mean to correct a timing mistake? It means to make it right, to fix it. Different situations may very well require different actions to correct. Whatever definition you apply, taking away a one-in-a-hundred basket for some mytical do-over is not correcting the mistake. It is making another one.

I don't care if it's a one-in-a-hundred sitch. Every possession counts, for both teams.

Some good points, though.

[Mark Dexter]

Originally posted by Back In The Saddle

JR, there are first year officials listening. Please do not confuse them by trying to claim that a correctable error situation is the same as a do-over. In the case of letting the wrong player shoot the free throws, it ain't no stinkin' do-over. The referee is just finally doing what he should have done, which is have the offended player shoot the free throws at the correct basket.

But if you want to drag the correctable error rule into this, then you have to note that it says that all action (that would be the basket) that occurs between the time of the error and it's being corrected stands. By that logic, the tap stands. And, hey presto, they get another shot at it too!

But the tap was after the horn, so if we're using "everything that occurs stands" then the late shot stands, and is therefore no good.

[Mark Dexter]

Originally posted by Back In The Saddle
Where is our physicist in residence when you need him? JugglingReferee, you claim that the referee cannot have definite knowledge that the tap took less than 0.3 seconds. 0.3 seconds is the empirically determined minimum time it takes to catch and shoot.

A tap, on the other hand, is "the contacting of the ball with any part of the player's hand(s) in an attempt to direct the ball into his/her basket." In other words, you've got a ball in the air and you are striking it to redirect it. Assuming the player does not do a one-handed catch and release (which can be done in 0.3 seconds), you've got to consider the tap to be pretty much instantaneous. At the very least you cannot logically consider that it takes 0.3 seconds or longer.

By emperical study it is definitely possible to catch and release a try in 0.3 seconds. A tap can definitely be accomplished in much less time since it involves only striking a ball already in the air. The rules committee is definitely in favor of counting the goal when in doubt.

Hi - I'm going to play resident physicist here.

Yes, a tap could occur with 0.1 left on the clock, but that doesn't mean that it is automatically a legal tap. If there's even the slightest amount of control or movement of the hand, we're looking at at least 0.2 - 0.3 seconds. You need to have the horn to be totally sure (and even then, the clock is starting late).

[Nevadaref]

Originally posted by JugglingReferee
the only consistent tool available to us to make the correct call is that the clock started correctly and that the contact with the ball ended before the buzzer sounded.

You might say that he touched the ball for less than 0.3s and the basket counts, but let's say that replay shows that that is not the case. Now you, the referee, has decided the game. And not anyone else. What tool did you use? Nothing consistent.

Some good points have been made in this thread. Thanks BITS, JR, and others. I simply made my own case and stated my belief on the best way to handle this unfortunate situation. Of course, I am not the controlling word on the subject.
While I agree with the first statement above, I have to wonder why JugRef believes that the clock is so accurate?
Just as he states that different officials have different allowances on a tap, different timers have different reaction times when starting the clock when the ball is touched inbounds. Some are a little slow, some are quite quick, but likely very few are them are right on.
As he wrote, "Nothing consistent."
If comes down to it, I would rather have the referee decide than put the game in the hands of the timer ("minor official"). Afterall, the referee is the one getting paid the big bucks. This is one reason why D-1 has gone to the precision timing device, which allows the official on the court to start the clock.

[Mark Dexter]

Originally posted by Nevadaref
This is one reason why D-1 has gone to the precision timing device, which allows the official on the court to start the clock.

I wish - unfortunately they didn't make it mandatory.

My school just did a huge renovation, new scoreboard and clock system, but still no Precision Timing.