Inboudn play with 2.8 seconds left

Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. · #11 (**permalink**) Thu Dec 16, 2004, 01:58pm

Quote:

Originally posted by David B

Quote:

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

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.