Inboudn play with 2.8 seconds left

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

That's completely ignorant!!

Edited to delete that picture from my post.

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Dec 19th, 2004 at 07:59 PM]

JR:

What did I miss?

Email me at DeNucciBasketball (at) Hotmail (dot) com. Thanks.

MTD, Sr.

[blindzebra]

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

bz:

I was just repeating what you have been advocating: That mistakes by officials cannot be corrected. I wanted to clarify that mistakes by officials are not the same as correctable errors.

And you have been advocating that an official that erroneously signaling time in is a mistake by the official. I agree that it is a mistake by an official but it is not a correctable error.

MTD, Sr.

That is what I've been saying about this 2.8 second throw in play, that it is an Officials error and NOT correctable 5.10.1.C.

Now if you are agreeing that erroneously signaling the clock to start IS an officials error, then how are you right in your interpretation on this play?

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally posted by blindzebra

That is what I've been saying about this 2.8 second throw in play, that it is an Officials error and NOT correctable 5.10.1.C.

Now if you are agreeing that erroneously signaling the clock to start IS an officials error, then how are you right in your interpretation on this play?

bz:

No one is disagreeing with you that the game official made a mistake when he incorrectly signaled time in, but that does not invalidate Team A's throw-in play.

MTD, Sr.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

I would like to address three items.

Item 1: The original play in this thread is a very simple on to handle. There are three schools of thought:

(1) R5-S9-A1 requires the Timer to start the game clock when the game official signaled time in and that is just want the Timer did. The game official signaled time in too soon but his mistake cannot be corrected. Therefore, the game is over.

(2) R5-S9-A1 requires the Timer to start the game clock when the game official signaled time in and that is just want the Timer did. The game official signaled time in too soon but his mistake cannot be corrected. But the game really cannot end like this so the only way to correct this is to invoke R2-S3 and have a do over.

(3) R5-S9-A4 is the governing rule. The inbounds play by Team A stands. The game clock is reset to the time on the game clock before that original throw-in by Team A and Team receives the ball for a throw-in nearest the spot where A3 caught A2’s throw-in pass.

In all three scenarios the clock was started to soon. That is the only mistake in this play. A mistake by the Timer does not negate a legal play.

Let us change the play slightly: There are 2:55 left on the game clock instead of 2.8 seconds. The game official signals time in too soon, and the Timer starts the clock because the game official signaled time in. When A3 catches A2’s throw-in pass the game clock shows 2:51 and counting. As soon as A3 catches A2’s throw-in pass, he turns and attempts a three point field goal. The attempt is successful and as the ball drops through the basket the game clock shows 2:47, and the game official sounds his whistle to stop play and the game clock. What should the game officials do now?

(1) Should the game officials tell the coaches that the game clock cannot be corrected because the game official signaled time in and the Timer started the game clock per R5-S9-A1?

(2) Should the game officials tell the coaches that because the Timer started the game clock when the game official signaled time in, they are going to invoke R2-S3, therefore A3’s three point field goal attempt is going to be negated, the game clock reset to the game clock is going to reset to 2:55 and Team A must redo its throw-in from the end line in its backcourt with the privilege of attempting throw-in from anywhere along the end line.

(3) Should the game officials reset the game clock to 2:51 because they have definite knowledge of how much time ran off the clock (4 seconds) before it should have been correctly started. Score A3’s three point field goal attempt. And give the ball to Team B for a throw-in on the end line in its backcourt with the privilege of attempting throw-in from anywhere along the end line.

The amended play that I have just given is no different than the play we have been discussing ad infinitum and ad nauseum. I doubt that there are any officials who would even consider solutions (1) or (2). And if solutions (1) and (2) are not acceptable for my amended play, how can they be acceptable for the original play in this thread. The logic in choosing solution (3) in the amended play is the same logic for applying it in the original play.


Item (2): I am offended by the implication that I led Mary to agree with me. Almost everyone taking part in this discussion has read in other threads somebody suggesting that somebody contact Mary for an interpretation. I gave the play to Mary along with a defense of my position. Mary was free to draw her own conclusions. If anybody were to send me a play with his interpretation as well as a defense of his position and was to ask for my opinion, I would do the same as Mary did. I would study the play. If I agreed with the person’s assessment of the play I would tell him so; I would find no need to repeat the person’s defense of his position. If I did not agree with him, I would say so along with a defense of my position. I think the problem is that Mary agreed with my position and some people do not want to accept Mary’s decision. I am sorry you do not want to accept her decision. I have also heard the arguments about the disclaimer at the front of NFHS rules books, but with regard to the basketball rules, I know for a fact that other people far more knowledgeable than me have advised her that the NFHS and not StateHSAA has to be the final word on rules interpretations. If the NFHS is not the final word then it would be possible to have fifty different interpretations for the same play, and that is not good.


Item (3): bz wanted to know the content of my emails with Gary Whelchel. I do not have a problem with bz’s request. If bz will email at DeNucciBASKETBALL (at) Hotmail (dot) com, I will then email him the contents of the emails that I exchanged with Gary. bz can then draw his own conclusions.

MTD, Sr.

[blindzebra]

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

bz:

No one is disagreeing with you that the game official made a mistake when he incorrectly signaled time in, but that does not invalidate Team A's throw-in play.

MTD, Sr.

Then why, by rule in 5.10.1.C,is it okay to invalidate team B's defensive effort when the official erred in their 10 second count?

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally posted by blindzebra

Then why, by rule in 5.10.1.C,is it okay to invalidate team B's defensive effort when the official erred in their 10 second count?

bz:

With all due respect, if you are going use Casebook Play 5.10.1.C, read its RULING and at the same time take the time to read R5-S10-A1. The game official does not have definite knowlege with regard to the game clock in CbP 5.10.1C. CbP 5.10.1.C does not apply to the play in this thread because the game officials do have definite knowledge.

MTD, Sr.

[Edited by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. on Dec 19th, 2004 at 11:54 PM]

[blindzebra]

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

bz:

With all due respect, if you are going use Casebook Play 5.10.1.C, read its RULING and at the same time take the time to read R5-S10-A1. The game official does not have definite knowlege with regard to the game clock in CbP 5.10.1C. CbP 5.10.1.C does not apply to the play in this thread because the game officials do have definite knowledge.

MTD, Sr.

[Edited by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. on Dec 19th, 2004 at 11:54 PM]

Mark the reason it is not correctable in 5.10.1.C is because it is an OFFICIALS ERROR and not a TIMERS ERROR, it has NOTHING to do with definite information of a timer's mistake, because the timer did not make one.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

BZ:

I just emailed to you the information that you requested.

Based upon your latest reply, it is obvious that you did not read R5-S10-A1. The CbP 5.10.1.C is not similar to our play. Read R5-S10-A1!

It strikes me as odd that you have not commented on the secondary play that I listed in my Item (1). Is it because my play and the play being discussed in the thread are really the same type of play with the only difference being the amount of time on the game clock?

Good night all.

MTD, Sr.

[blindzebra]

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
BZ:

I just emailed to you the information that you requested.

Based upon your latest reply, it is obvious that you did not read R5-S10-A1. The CbP 5.10.1.C is not similar to our play. Read R5-S10-A1!

It strikes me as odd that you have not commented on the secondary play that I listed in my Item (1). Is it because my play and the play being discussed in the thread are really the same type of play with the only difference being the amount of time on the game clock?

Good night all.

MTD, Sr.

Mark, try all you like, but I fully understand what is going on in all of the case plays under 5.10.1 situations A-E and in 5.10.2.

Situations A, B, D, E and 5.10.2 are all TIMERS errors, where the official CORRECTLY signaled the clock to start or stop and the timer IGNORED the signal.

Situation C is not a timer's error, it is an official's error which is why it is NOT correctable, definite information has NOTHING to do with the ruling in 5.10.1.C.

Our 2.8 second play is ALSO an officials error.

As for moving it to 2:56:

You can't fix it, so the basket is good and the time is what it is because of an official's error.

There is no compelling reason to invoke 2-3 in this play because the official's error has not ended the game.

It does not fall under a timer's error, so fixing the clock is not an option.

[Edited by blindzebra on Dec 20th, 2004 at 01:02 AM]

[cmathews]

Mark,
I did not mean to offend you with my assertation that you led Mary down the path to your conclusion. You in as much admitted this yourself later. I personally don't list my position or defense of that position when I ask for official interps from our rules interpreter. I give the play, and let them do the leg work etc. I still hold to the fact that only the states can ask for an official interp from the NFHS, that is the offical reply I got from them. We have all discussed many times here that you have to do what your assingors, interpreters want you to do, so having varying interps for the same play in different states is not odd, probably more common than we would all care to think about.

As for the changing of the time from 2.8 to 2:56, you can't change the time because it isn't correctable nor a timer's mistake, so in strict adhereance to this guideline in the original play the game would be over...but I still would have a hard time not invoking 2-3 for the same reasons BZ listed above.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by blindzebra
[B]

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
BZ:

I just emailed to you the information that you requested.

Based upon your latest reply, it is obvious that you did not read R5-S10-A1. The CbP 5.10.1.C is not similar to our play. Read R5-S10-A1!

It strikes me as odd that you have not commented on the secondary play that I listed in my Item (1). Is it because my play and the play being discussed in the thread are really the same type of play with the only difference being the amount of time on the game clock?

Good night all.

MTD, Sr.

Mark, try all you like, but I fully understand what is going on in all of the case plays under 5.10.1 situations A-E and in 5.10.2.

Situations A, B, D, E and 5.10.2 are all TIMERS errors, where the official CORRECTLY signaled the clock to start or stop and the timer IGNORED the signal.

Situation C is not a timer's error, it is an official's error which is why it is NOT correctable, definite information has NOTHING to do with the ruling in 5.10.1.C.

Our 2.8 second play is ALSO an officials error.

As for moving it to 2:56:

You can't fix it, so the basket is good and the time is what it is because of an official's error.

There is no compelling reason to invoke 2-3 in this play because the official's error has not ended the game.

It does not fall under a timer's error, so fixing the clock is not an option.

[Edited by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. on Dec 20th, 2004 at 11:57 AM]

[Mark Dexter]

Originally posted by blindzebra

Situation C is not a timer's error, it is an official's error which is why it is NOT correctable, definite information has NOTHING to do with the ruling in 5.10.1.C.

Yes - it's an official's error NOT a clock error.

No one is suggesting that the clock mis-timed the last ten seconds. Note the last sentence of the ruling "There is no provision for the correction of an error made in the official's accuracy in counting seconds." That is the point of 5.10.1 C - that the official's count is independent of the clock. This casebook play has nothing to do with the 2.8 seconds left situation.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally posted by Mark Dexter

Yes - it's an official's error NOT a clock error.

No one is suggesting that the clock mis-timed the last ten seconds. Note the last sentence of the ruling "There is no provision for the correction of an error made in the official's accuracy in counting seconds." That is the point of 5.10.1 C - that the official's count is independent of the clock. This casebook play has nothing to do with the 2.8 seconds left situation.

Mark:

Thank you for making the point I was trying to make but was too lazy to point out.

MTD, Sr.

[blindzebra]

Originally posted by Mark Dexter

Yes - it's an official's error NOT a clock error.

No one is suggesting that the clock mis-timed the last ten seconds. Note the last sentence of the ruling "There is no provision for the correction of an error made in the official's accuracy in counting seconds." That is the point of 5.10.1 C - that the official's count is independent of the clock. This casebook play has nothing to do with the 2.8 seconds left situation.

The official's count is relevant to a timer's error, because it is used as definite information to fix an error 5.10.2.

The reason 5.1.10.C is important to the 2.8 second play is because it was an OFFICIAL'S error, just like the erroneously chopped in clock in 2.8.

[gsf23]

The only question I have here is how many officials out there would actually let the game end this way?