Inboudn play with 2.8 seconds left

Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. · #1 (**permalink**) Thu Dec 16, 2004, 02:42pm

Quote:

Originally posted by blindzebra

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

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.