Inboudn play with 2.8 seconds left

[ChuckElias]

My solution to the situation last time, which nobody liked, was to rule that the whistle blew as soon as the ball was caught inbounds, take 0.3 seconds off the clock, and put the ball back in play at the nearest spot to where the ball was caught.

If it was clear that the ball was caught and some time ran off before the horn sounded, then I'd take off more than 0.3 seconds, using my best judgment.

And no, I do not have definite knowledge, but I'm not doing a do-over unless the horn sounded before the throw-in was released.

[Edited by ChuckElias on Dec 12th, 2004 at 07:04 PM]

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally posted by ChuckElias
My solution to the situation last time, which nobody liked, was to rule that the whistle blew as soon as the ball was caught inbounds, take 0.3 seconds off the clock, and put the ball back in play at the nearest spot to where the ball was caught.

If it was clear that the ball was caught and some time ran off before the horn sounded, then I'd take off more than 0.3 seconds, using my best judgment.

And no, I do not have definite knowledge, but I'm not doing a do-over unless the horn sounded before the throw-in was released.

[Edited by ChuckElias on Dec 12th, 2004 at 07:04 PM]

Chuck:

I agree with your solution (because it is also my solution) with the small disagreement about how much time should be on the clock, but I can live with resetting the game clock to the orginial time left minus 0.3 seconds.

MTD, Sr.

[Mark Dexter]

I say reset to 2.8.

5-9-4 says that the clock SHALL be started when the ball touches a player on the court.

5-10-1 says that mistakes involving starting or stopping the clock PROPERLY can be corrected.

The clock was not properly started by rule, and I believe that article 4 of 5-9 supercedes article 1, especially when #1 is applied incorrectly.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally posted by Mark Dexter
I say reset to 2.8.

5-9-4 says that the clock SHALL be started when the ball touches a player on the court.

5-10-1 says that mistakes involving starting or stopping the clock PROPERLY can be corrected.

The clock was not properly started by rule, and I believe that article 4 of 5-9 supercedes article 1, especially when #1 is applied incorrectly.

Mark:

That is what I have been saying all along, but what kind of throw-in do you have? I say that Team A inbounded the ball correctly so the next throw-in should be a designated spot throw-in where A3 caught A2's throw-in pass.

MTD, Sr.

[Mark Dexter]

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

That is what I have been saying all along, but what kind of throw-in do you have? I say that Team A inbounded the ball correctly so the next throw-in should be a designated spot throw-in where A3 caught A2's throw-in pass.

MTD, Sr.

One involving a ball and at least two team A players . . .

This is where I have trouble. Rules-wise, I think you and Chuck are correct - the ball became dead when the whistle blew, and you would have a spot throw-in at the closest spot to the touching (be it sideline or endline).

In the heat of the moment, though, I'd probably let team A run the endline. It's probably not correct by rule, though - about the only justification I have is 2-3 (what happens when the referee/umpire incorrectly starts the clock is not specifically covered in the rules, so I'm applying what's fair to the entire situation - I know; it's a stretch).

[gsf23]

Did we ever get an "official" interpretation on this?

[gsf23]

Did we ever get an "official" interpretation on this?

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally posted by gsf23
Did we ever get an "official" interpretation on this?

Not yet.

[blindzebra]

I e-mailed Gary Whelchel, the director of officials in Arizona who is on the NFHS rules committee.

This is his reply, the bold caps are Mr. Whelchel's response:

Gary this is a play that has been debated on the officiating.com forum and I'd appreciate your thoughts.

2.8 seconds left A1 has a throw in from their endline after a made basket by team B, that was following a timeout. A1 throws the ball to A2, who is also OOB MUST BE OOB AT THE ENDLINE, who then passes it to A3 near the division line. The horn goes off just after A3 catches the ball.

The administering official chopped in time, and the timer started the clock, when A2 caught the pass from A1.MISTAKE BY THE OFFICIAL - NOT A CORRECTABLE ERROR.

What, if anything, is the solution to this play? BY RULE, THE GAME IS OVER

5-9-1 says the timer should start the clock on the officials signal. CORRECT, AND THAT IS WHAT THE TIMER DID.

5-9-4 says that it should start on the touch by a player on the floor. THE OFFICIAL SHOULD BE CHOPPING IN THE CLOCK WHEN IT IS TOUCHED ON THE FLOOR

We have case play 5.10.1.C that deals with an official's error being non-correctable. CORRECT

We also have 2-3 since this play is not exactly covered by rule or case play. CORRECT - BUT THIS IS COVERED IN THAT IT IS NOT CORRECTABLE, BY RULE.


Some are saying it is a timer's error, so we should fix it by applying those rules. NOT A TIMERS ERROR

Others say it is an official's error, since the timer followed 5-9-1, and the official did not follow 5-9-4. IT IS AN OFFICIALS ERROR

I'm leaning toward official's error and using 2-3 to correct it, by running the play over with 2.8 on the clock and A's ball with running privileges. THIS WOULD BE THE WISE THING TO DO AND THE FAIR THING TO DO, AND I COULD SUPPORT IT, BUT, KEEP IN MIND THAT IT IS NOT A CORRECTABLE ERROR, BY RULE, AND THIS ANSWER IS NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY RULE REFERENCE.


It appears that Mr. Whelchel would support using 2-3, but by rule...covered by 5.10.1.C... the game is over.

[Edited by blindzebra on Dec 15th, 2004 at 06:58 PM]

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

I have just received an email from Mary Struckhoff, Editor of the NFHS Basketball Rules Committee.

Her ruling was the same as mine. Team A correctly inbounded the ball. The Timer made a mistake by incorrectly starting the clock to soon. Team A shall inbound the ball closest to the spot where A3 had caught A2's throw-in pass. She stated that anywere from 0.2 to 0.4 seconds could be taken off the game clock.

Since the game clock in this play showed tenths of a second, I never thought to ask her if anytime should be taken off the game clock if it were a game clock that showed only whole seconds. It would be my interpretation that the officials would not be able to take any time off of the game clock.

MTD, Sr.

[David B]

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
I have just received an email from Mary Struckhoff, Editor of the NFHS Basketball Rules Committee.

Her ruling was the same as mine. Team A correctly inbounded the ball. The Timer made a mistake by incorrectly starting the clock to soon. Team A shall inbound the ball closest to the spot where A3 had caught A2's throw-in pass. She stated that anywere from 0.2 to 0.4 seconds could be taken off the game clock.

Since the game clock in this play showed tenths of a second, I never thought to ask her if anytime should be taken off the game clock if it were a game clock that showed only whole seconds. It would be my interpretation that the officials would not be able to take any time off of the game clock.

MTD, Sr.

Since she didn't state any rules to cover this I would still say that the officials could do whatever they wanted and be correct by rule.

We have the guys from Arizona saying one thing and the gal that edits the rules saying another - that sounds about right for FED.

I still agree that the only thing fair to do is to do it over or call the game as over.

The officials manual covers this type of play as I stated in last years thread - it also gives the officals latitude to correct it as they see fit.

Thanks
David

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally posted by David B

Since she didn't state any rules to cover this I would still say that the officials could do whatever they wanted and be correct by rule.

We have the guys from Arizona saying one thing and the gal that edits the rules saying another - that sounds about right for FED.

I still agree that the only thing fair to do is to do it over or call the game as over.

The officials manual covers this type of play as I stated in last years thread - it also gives the officals latitude to correct it as they see fit.

Thanks
David

David B:

I emailed Mary Struckhoff, Rules Editor, NFHS Basketball Rules Committee at Sunday, December 12, 2004, at 06:08pmEST, Sunday. My email included my interpretation for how the play should be handled including all appropriate NFHS rules and casebook references that I believe pertain to the play. I posted the contents of my email to Mary on Sunday, December 12, 2004, at 06:16pmEST.

I received an email from Mary today at 11:11amEST with her interpretation of the play. She agreed with the interpretation that I had email to her. Evidently, Mary took her time to research the play and all appropriate rules and casebook plays that apply to the play, since it took four days for her to email me with an interpretation.

The rules and casebook plays in my post of Sun., Dec. 12, 2004, at 06:16pm are the what I used to make my interpretation and Mary agreed with me. Mary is the final authority for NFHS basketball rules interpretations. What more rules and casebook references do you need to accept what is, for all intents and purposes, and official intepretation from the NFHS?

You stated that the officials Manual (the NFHS Officials Manual I presume) covers this play. I have gone through the manual completely and I did not find anything like this in the manual. I tried to find your post, but the search function on this site is still disabled. Could you please post the section of the manual you are referencing?

I can accept you not liking Mary's interpretation of the rules regarding this play. And over the course of 34 years, I have seen one or two interpretations come for the NBCUSC, NFHS, and NCAA Men's/Women's rules committees with which I did not agree. But if the situation arose, I applied the interpretation that we as all officials must follow, the one that comes from the NFHS or NCAA rules committee, not the one we want to use.

With respect to blindzebra's post. I exchanged emails with Gary Whelchel. Mr. Whelchel is the Commissioner of Officials for the Arizona Interscholastic Association and more importantly for the sake of this discussion he is the Zone 7 Representative on the NFHS Basketball Rules Committee. The exhange of emails was quite productive and as soon as blindzebra reads my post with Mary's interpretation, I am sure that he will be in contact with Mr. Whelchel and things will be sorted out.

In conclusion, I repeat that Mary is the final authority and she has given as a rules interpretation that we can all follow until the Rules Committee decides to amend the rules to handle such situations.

MTD, Sr.

[blindzebra]

Originally posted by David B

Since she didn't state any rules to cover this I would still say that the officials could do whatever they wanted and be correct by rule.

We have the guys from Arizona saying one thing and the gal that edits the rules saying another - that sounds about right for FED.

I still agree that the only thing fair to do is to do it over or call the game as over.

The officials manual covers this type of play as I stated in last years thread - it also gives the officals latitude to correct it as they see fit.

Thanks
David

Gary Whelchel was the rules committee chair, it was convenient of Mark to not share Ms. Struckhoff's actual response, but to only say she agreed with his ruling.

This is simple you have rules support, 5-9-1, that the Timer started the clock correctly. You have rules support, 5-9-4, that the OFFICIAL incorrectly chopped in time.

5.10.1.C deals with officials error causing time to expire, so you have rules support to end the game.

For fairness, 2-3 comes into play, even though it is covered by 5.10.1.C, that would be the right thing to do, even if the rules don't support it.

There is NOTHING in Mark's ruling that is supported by rule.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally posted by blindzebra

Gary Whelchel was the rules committee chair, it was convenient of Mark to not share Ms. Struckhoff's actual response, but to only say she agreed with his ruling.

This is simple you have rules support, 5-9-1, that the Timer started the clock correctly. You have rules support, 5-9-4, that the OFFICIAL incorrectly chopped in time.

5.10.1.C deals with officials error causing time to expire, so you have rules support to end the game.

For fairness, 2-3 comes into play, even though it is covered by 5.10.1.C, that would be the right thing to do, even if the rules don't support it.

There is NOTHING in Mark's ruling that is supported by rule.

blindzebra:

1) Gary Whelchel is not the Chairman of the NFHS Basketball Rules Committee. Larry Boucher of Lexington, Kentucky is the Chairman. He was the Chair for the 2003-04 season and is the Chair for the 2004-05 season.

2) My email to Mary was very detailed. It laid out the play and I referenced each rule and casebook play that applies to the play. I don't know what you mean when you said and I quote: "It was convenient of Mark to not share Ms. Struckhoff's actual response, but to only say she agreed with his ruling."

Here is exactly what Mary wrote to me, and I hope that Brad does not get upset with me for posting the contents of an email that I received from someone else on the Board: "I agree that the game officials did the right thing....especially in taking some time off the clock. If the ball is going to be advanced to the frontcourt, at least .2 should be subtracted; .4 is acceptable." Sounds, just like what I said in my post of earlier this morning. Since I had laid out the reasons for my interpretions to her in detail, what else was she to say if she agreed with me. If she disagreed with me I would assume that she would have gone into the same detail that I did to prove my point to prove her point.

If you come to me with a play, you give me your interpretation and provide all of the details for your interpretation including rules and casebook plays for reference, and I agree with you, do I need to say everything that you said back to you. No. I would say I agree with you. Short, simple, and to the point.

3) The two NFHS rules references that you use above are the rules references that I used for my interpretation. How can that be? The casebook play that you reference does not apply to the play because we do have definite knowlege of time on the clock.

4) As I have already stated, my email to Gary Whelchel contained the exact same information that I sent to Mary. I even told him that I had sent the play to Mary and was waiting for a response from her.

5) As I have already stated, Mary took four days to get back to me with her response. I would hope that meant she took the time to research the rules and casebook plays before she reponded to my email.

6) I hope that David B will post the section of the NFHS Officials Manual that covers this play.

7) And finally, Mary is the final word on NFHS interpretations. Please reread the fifth paragraph of my post of 01:58pm today about interpretations we do not like.

Have a Happy Holidays blindzebra.

MTD, Sr.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.


[/B]

7) And finally, Mary is the final word on NFHS interpretations. Please reread the fifth paragraph of my post of 01:58pm today about interpretations we do not like.

[/B][/QUOTE]Somehow, I think that I'll just wait until I see a case play issued for this one, or maybe something posted on the NFHS web site. Mary Struckhoff has been wrong too many times before and has had to retract her spur-of-the-moment rulings. And your track record has had a few bumps along the way too. It's not that I don't believe you. It's that I do believe that this particular ruling, if there actually was one, ain't gonna stand up. And seeing that it's not an official ruling, I'll think that I'll just wait and see.

Oh, and please don't try to tell me that Mary's reply to your e-mail actually does constitute an official ruling from the NFHS. That dog don't hunt.