Inboudn play with 2.8 seconds left

[blindzebra]

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

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.

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.

[David B]

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

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.

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

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally posted by David B

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

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.

[cmathews]

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?

[David B]

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

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.

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 throw ins 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 go back 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

[David B]

Originally posted by cmathews
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?

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

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by David B

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

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

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally posted by blindzebra

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.

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]

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

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.

[cmathews]

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]

[blindzebra]

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
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.

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.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally posted by cmathews
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]

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.

[cmathews]

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....

[blindzebra]

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

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.

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.

[Jurassic Referee]

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 not allowed to guess at how much actual time to put back on. You have to know the exact 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.