Re: Re: Re: Not official though
 

I guess you missed that WAS the chair, huh.

You still have not posted Mr. Whelchel's thoughts on YOUR interpretation, I wonder why? Did he have a complete change of heart, since his former stance completely disagreed with your interpretation?

Happy Holidays to you.

Re: Re: Re: Not official though
 

There are too many ifs and buts in this interepretation. I'm not sure that she consulted with anyone on this but simply gave her interpretation.

I would not consider it official until it is in print as JP stated above.

the portion of the manual that I'm referring to is section 223.

thanks
David

Re: Re: Re: Re: Not official though
 

David:

Section 223 applies to when the Scorer or Timer sounds the horn sounds to gain the attention of the game officials or if the game horn sounds automatically and in both cases the horn sounds while the player making the throw-in has the ball. Section 223 does not apply to the play we are discussing.

MTD, Sr.

with all due respect
 

Mark, with all due respect, none of the case plays that you mention are about the play being discussed either. In none of the case plays does the official signal incorrectly for the time to start. That is the crux of the play. Whether it is a timer's error, or an official's error. I must ask you this and it is a one word answer from you that I request.

According to 5-9-1, did the timer start the clock correctly? IE when the official chopped it in?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not official though
 

Mark,

I knew that was going to be your response so I didn't even bother to put it in my reply.

It also has to do with <b>throw ins</b> which is what was happening when the clock went off in your play.

What would happen in the same play, but the official sounds the horn because a sub was coming to the table. The case play lets you either ignore the horn and play on or to <b>go back</b> and fix the play.

Which is what several posters have suggested they would do by the way in your play.

I'm done with this until we get an interpretation in writing.

Have a Merry Christmas

Thanks
David

Re: with all due respect
 

And don't forget that we have to give the timer the leeway of a couple of seconds to stop the clock once it is started.

Thanks
David

Re: Re: with all due respect
 

A "Couple" of seconds? The maximum lag time is 1 second.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Not official though
 

I am sorry that I misread the WAS in your description of Mr. Whelchel. I have no excuse for misreading your post with regard to Mr. Whelchel. But I presume it was at least before the 2001-02 season, because Dick Knox of the North CarolinaHSAA was the Chairman before Larry Boucher

MTD, Sr.

[Edited by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. on Dec 17th, 2004 at 11:29 PM]

cmathews has asked me to answer two questions:

#1) Whether it is a timer's error, or an official's error? I must ask you this and it is a one word answer from you that I request.

2) According to 5-9-1, did the timer start the clock correctly?


Answer #1: Per rule the Trail did not signal time in correctly and per rule the Timer did not start the game clock correctly.

Answer #2: No.


But is NOT important to say that the Timer did not start the clock correctly nor is it important to say that the Trail did not signal time in.

As I have stated before ad infintum and ad nauseum the two rules references that are key to this play are NFHS R5-S9-A1 and A4.


Section 9: Restarting The Clock

Aricle 1: After time is out, the clock shall be started when the official signals time in. If the official neglects to signal, the timer is authorized to start the as per rule, unless an official specifically signals continued time-out.

Article 4: If play is resumed by a throw-in, the clock shall start be started when the ball touches, or is touched by, a player on the court after it is released by the thrower.


Article 4 is the governing rule. The Trail cannot signal time in nor can the Timer start the game clock before the conditions of Article 4 are met.

Team A completed its throw-in per rule. The clock was not supposed to start until the ball touched or was touched by A3. It does NOT matter what the Trail or Timer did or did not do. The clock cannot start before the ball touched or was touched by A3. All that matters is that the clock started before the conditions of Article 4 were met.

The fact that the clock was started before the conditions of Article 4 were met does not eliminate Team A's throw-in. Since the officials have definite knowledge as to how much time should be on the game clock, the game clock can be corrected and Team A receives the ball for a throw-in nearest the spot where the ball was when the game was stopped to correct the game clock. Too much has been written about whether the Timer made a mistake or the Trail made a mistake. It does NOT matter. The clock was not started correctly per Article 4 and that is all that matters. Correct the clock and finish the game.

Remember the commercial: When E.F. Hutton speaks everybody listens. Well, when the Editor of the Rules Committee speaks everybody should listen.

For all of you naysayers, every argument, rules, and casebook plays I have posted here, I gave to Mary and she agreed with me. I am sure that everybody who has taken part in this thread would agree, that the best way to settle a play situation is to contact the Editor of the Rules Committed directly and ask that person to give an interpretation. That is what I did, and now everybody who had disagreed with me does not want to accept Mary's ruling. Well you cannot have it both ways. Mary spoke and we should now listen. I have also stated that there have been one or two interpretations over the past 34 years with which I have not agreed, but I accepted them and applied them when neccessary.

MTD, Sr.

we must continue to agree to disagree.....
 

Mark,
I respectfully disagree with your assesment of the governing rule.

The fact that by rule the timer started the clock as a Timer is supposed to...ie when the official chopped it in, is the governing rule in my opinion.

There is no disputing that the official erred, and how to correct it certainly is up to several debates...

My original opinion however remains unchanged, the timer started the clock by rule, you can not dispute that fact Mark, it is in the rule book that the timer shall start it when an official chops it in. Timers are not to judge whether or not an official chopped it correctly. It is certainly cool if they do, but by rule if they start it on the chop they did it correctly from their standpoint. If you agree with that opinion (and I know Mark doesn't), then you have an officials error that is not correctable...however ivoking 2-3 is certainly a decent thing to do.

[Edited by cmathews on Dec 18th, 2004 at 12:28 AM]

When it's in the book we will accept it, until then both you and Mary are 100% wrong.

Reason one:

5-9-1 says the clock starts on the signal. It has language that says the timer is authorized to start the clock it if the official NEGLECTS to signal, but it does not say the timer is authorized to IGNORE the signal.

5-9-4 is when the official SHOULD signal, again there is no lanuage within this article that directs it to the TIMER, nor does it say that article 4 is the governing rule.

Both point directly at what it is, an OFFICIAL'S error.

Now we know it IS NOT a timer's error so case plays 5.10.1.A,B,D,E and 5.10.2 don't apply. 5.10.1.C does deal with an OFFICIAL'S error, which is what we have, and by rule the game is over.

Now 5.10.1.C does not fit our situation exactly, so MAYBE we can sneak in a do over under 2-3.

Reason two:

You said Mary said anywhere from .2 to .4 seconds should come off the clock. Well, last I checked EVERY timer's error correction, by rule, requires definite information to add or subtract time. How do we arrive at .2? Is that 20% of a 1 count? How do we get .4? Was the official almost half way to a 1 count?

You yourself said you were not completely comfortable with that .3 in a earlier post, so how do we accept this ruling as a whole, when part of it COMPLETELY contradicts the rule of fixing a timer's error?

Nope, I'm not buying it, it's WRONG.

Re: we must continue to agree to disagree.....
 

Forget R2-S3. I cannot remember a time when I ever had to invoke it. It does NOT apply.

R5-S9-A4 IS the governing rule. The official signally time in is a mechanic signifying that the ball has already been touched or touched by a player on the court. What is so difficult about the concept that it does NOT matter what the Trail did or did not do or what the Timer did or did not do. Team A executed its throw-in correctly and you CANNOT have a do over because there is nothing to do over. The only do over's are free throw violations by the non-shooting team. And you CANNOT say the game is over because of R5-S9-A1.

Mark,
This is what is so hard to buy about it. A rule is not a mechanic. The 5-9-1 is the only portion that deals with telling a timer when to start the clock. They started the clock correctly. I agreee that 5-9-4 tells the official when to start the clock, and we agree that the signal was done at the wrong time. The timer however is absolved here, and it is the official that erred. It certainly would be an ugly situation, and I would bet that no one that has participated in this thread will ever chop the clock on the endline throw in LOL...we can only hope...until then, in my game it is either game over or 2-3....

Re: Re: we must continue to agree to disagree.....
 

Well since you are giving the timer the authority to ignore an official's signal, then in case play 5.10.1.C the timer SHOULD have stopped the clock at 2 seconds when the 10 second violation SHOULD have occurred.

Team A inbounded correctly in that case. Team B played defense correctly for 10 seconds, so by your logic, we should fix that play by applying a timer's error for not STOPPING the clock when a 10 second count was INCORRECTLY handled by the official.

It's the exact same thing Mark, the OFFICIAL made the error, and you still have NO rule to support your interpretation.

The biggest problem with this play is still R5-10-1&2. Ms. Struckhoff said that you could take 0.2 to 0.4 seconds off of the clock. Those rules doesn't allow you to do that. Ever! You have to have an official's count or some other official information to put time back on, and you are very specifically <b>not</b> allowed to guess at how much actual time to put back on. You have to <b>know</b> the <b>exact</b> time. Her ruling does not allow for that.

Mark, you didn't point that out to Mary, and she's not rules-knowledgeable enough to connect the dots. She's an editor, not a rules-maker. That's why I'll wait until I see an actual ruling in the book before I'll accept her e-mail. Of course, if a ruling is put in the book affirming your stance, I'll acknowledge at that time that you were right too. But not until then.