2.8 seconds, 2 point game, team A leading and inbounding after a made 3 pointer by team B. My partner and I discuss possible scenarios during the time out granted right after the aforementioned made 3 pointer, primarily suggesting to be alert for any grabbing or pulling of team A by team B during the throw in and then perhaps a quick foul after the inbounds pass.
A1 throws the pass to out of bounds A2 parallel to the endline. A2 takes a few steps back toward A1 and passes it to A3, who is on the court. A split second later the horn blows. I am standing in front of the visiting bench (team B) who is going nuts yelling, "the clock started early, the clock started early". The timer swears he started the clock on my partners chop in, which happened when A1 passed to A2 (who, if you remember was still out of bounds). What to do, what to do?
I'll let you all noodle this one and I'll tell you what we did?
Other things to consider...
How many passes can team A throw to each other out of bounds? Can A2 run the endline after receiving the initial throw in pass from A1?

Not this one again.

It's an official's error, which has no rules support to correct the mistake.

So it's either SOL, game over, or you envoke 2-3 and give a do over.

You mean you've already reviewed this one? That's what I get for just joining and I could've gone to bed 20 minutes ago and not spent time writing this up?

We discussed a play similar to this play earlier this year. And the thread was quite lengthy of my memory serves me correct. Hopefully Brad can resurrect it for the Forum.

But to make a long story short: It does not matter whether the Trail correctly or incorrectly signaled game clock to start, the game clock does not start until the throw-in touches a player on the court. In the play we are discussing in this thread, Team A correctly inbounded the ball and the game clock was incorrectly started, in this case too soon. The correct solution to the problem is to reset the clock to 2.8 seconds because that is the only definite knowledge that the officials have with respect to the amount of time left on the game clock. Since Team A had inbounded the ball properly after Team B’s successful field goal attempt, Team A receives the ball for a designated spot throw-in closest to the spot of where the ball was when play was stopped when the timing error was discovered. NFHS R2-S3 and NCAA R2-S3 does not apply to this play.

Mark, to avoid any further or future confusion, you really should replace "the correct solution" as written above in all future posts with "MY solution". You have no rules basis to label your <b>personal opinion</b> as actually being the correct answer by rule. If you can find a rule, any rule, that will back up your theory that you can have a designated spot throw-in where the ball was when the timing error was discovered, please post it. We've gone over this play <i>ad infinitum</i> and to death, and you've been unable to do so to date. There's nothing the matter with saying "my opinion is.....", but to label your opinion as being the "correct" one is ludicrous- especially when so many officials posting here completely disagree with you.

JR:

You are correct when you state that we have covered this play ad infinitum, we have also covered this play ad nauseum. And what I have stated in my previous post and the earlier thread is the correct solution. The rules governing when that clock shall start and stop cover this play. Team A did what the rules require it to do, the game clock operator started the clock incorrectly. The officials had definite knowledge of the time left on the game clock. The game is NOT over and R2-S3 is NOT the correct rule to apply here. Apply the rules that state when the Timer shall start the game clock. I am not saying to disregard the rules about the covering official signaling the Timer to start the game clock, but the rules that specifically state when the game clock shall start are the rules that govern in the play, not the rules about officials signaling the Timer to start the game clock.

MTD, Sr.

It is not fair for A to win via a timer's mistake.
It is not fair for B to lose via a timer's mistake.

(IOW, let the players decide the game.)

Result: do over. It's the only fair thing to do. Use 2-3 if you someone actually wants a reference.

How about the other questions--How many times can they throw the ball to eachother while out of bounds--I assume until the 5 second count is up--also can player A2 run the endline--i would assume he can but wonder what others think

You can have all 5 A players along the end line throwing the ball to each other, and every one of them can run along the endline holding, dribbling or passing the ball. All the officials really care about is that the ball has left one of those A player's hands on a real, live, honest-to-goodnesss throw-in pass before the 5 second count is over.

The next questions are: When all of those 5 A players are running the end-line, can they legally run OOB past the spot where the end and side-lines meet? With or without the ball? What if an A player is OOB past the spot where the lines meet and then makes the throw-in pass? Gotta rules citation to back your answer up? :D

What if...
 

Suppose in this situation A1 passes to A2, who is still OOB, and A2 fumbles the ball and it rolls inbounds. Is this considered a pass inbounds or could A2 retrieve the ball, step back OOB and pass the ball inbounds to another player, as long as 5 seconds has not elapsed?


In another situation, if A2 did not catch the ball and it went beyond the sideline and went into the bench area or the stands, what now??

We went on for 25 posts apiece about this, IT IS NOT A TIMER'S ERROR. This play is NOT covered by a rule and neither is your solution.

We do have rules support to end the game on an official's error 5.10.1.C.

We can envoke 2-3 because it is not SPECIFICALLY covered, and the only way to do that is 2.8 seconds at the PREVIOUS spot.

It's not a Timer's mistake, it's an official's mistake. By rule the official signals the clock to start, and that is what the timer is supposed to do. That signal AND the clock starting should come on the touch by rule.

So that this thread does not go on ad infinitum and ad nauseum I have just emailed Mary Struckhoff, Editor, NFHS Basketball Rules Committee, and have asked her to give us an official intepretation.

The actual play that I submitted to Mary is the play that was discussed during November and December 2003. The only difference the amount of time on the game clock and where A3 catches A2's throw-in. Here is what I emailed to Mary and hopefully she will give us a definitive answer, hopefully before Christmas.


PLAY: Team B scores a field goal. Team A immediately requests and is granted a team timeout. The game clock is stopped with 2.4 seconds left in the fourth quarter. After the team timeout is over the Trail official places the ball at the disposal of A1. A1 passes the ball to A2 who is also on the out-of-bounds side of the end line in Team A’s backcourt. A2 then releases a pass to A3 who catches the ball in the free throw lane of Team A’s front court. The Trail official mistakenly signals the Timer to start the game clock when A2 catches the pass from A1 (instead of signaling the Timer to start the game clock when A3 catches A2’s pass). The Timer mistakenly starts the game clock when the Trail official signals for the game clock to be started. Simultaneously with A3 catching A2’s passes the game clock’s horn sounds. Upon hearing the game clock horn, the game officials sound their whistles, stopping play. The game officials restarted the game with Team A receiving the ball for a throw-in on the endline in its frontcourt with 2.0 seconds on the game clock.

Did the game officials restart the game correctly? The officiating crew for this game was a two-person crew.

I take the position that the game officials were correct in how they restarted the game, even though I am inclined to reset the clock to 2.4 seconds.

I base my interpretation upon rules references and casebook plays in this year’s NFHS Rules Book and Casebook.
RULES:
R2-S5-A5
R2-S12-A3, A6, and A7 (This reference may or may not be germane to this play but they are listed among the Timer’s duties.)
R5-S8 (I include this entire section because it may or may not be germane to this play, but it lists the Timer’s responsibilities regarding stopping the game clock.)
R5-S9-A1 and A4
R5-S10-A1 and A2
CASEBOOK PLAYS:
5.9.3
5.9.4
5.10.1 Situations A, B (as well as the Comment), D(a, b c, and d), and E
5.10.2


MTD, Sr.

So then both the timer snd the official made a mistake.

The point is that the players get cheated unless you do a do-over.

The timer did their job 5-9-1, it is an official's error and we do have a rule reference to go by in 5.10.1.C for an officials error causing the time to run out.

5.10.1.C does not fit this play EXACTLY, so 2-3 could be envoked by granting a do over. None of the Timer's error rulings apply to this situation.

My solution to the situation last time, which nobody liked, was to rule that the whistle blew as soon as the ball was caught inbounds, take 0.3 seconds off the clock, and put the ball back in play at the nearest spot to where the ball was caught.

If it was clear that the ball was caught and some time ran off before the horn sounded, then I'd take off more than 0.3 seconds, using my best judgment.

And no, I do not have definite knowledge, but I'm not doing a do-over unless the horn sounded before the throw-in was released.

[Edited by ChuckElias on Dec 12th, 2004 at 07:04 PM]

Chuck:

I agree with your solution (because it is also my solution) with the small disagreement about how much time should be on the clock, but I can live with resetting the game clock to the orginial time left minus 0.3 seconds.

MTD, Sr.

I say reset to 2.8.

5-9-4 says that the clock SHALL be started when the ball touches a player on the court.

5-10-1 says that mistakes involving starting or stopping the clock PROPERLY can be corrected.

The clock was not properly started by rule, and I believe that article 4 of 5-9 supercedes article 1, especially when #1 is applied incorrectly.

Mark:

That is what I have been saying all along, but what kind of throw-in do you have? I say that Team A inbounded the ball correctly so the next throw-in should be a designated spot throw-in where A3 caught A2's throw-in pass.

MTD, Sr.

One involving a ball and at least two team A players . . .

This is where I have trouble. Rules-wise, I think you and Chuck are correct - the ball became dead when the whistle blew, and you would have a spot throw-in at the closest spot to the touching (be it sideline or endline).

In the heat of the moment, though, I'd probably let team A run the endline. It's probably not correct by rule, though - about the only justification I have is 2-3 (what happens when the referee/umpire incorrectly starts the clock is not specifically covered in the rules, so I'm applying what's fair to the entire situation - I know; it's a stretch).

Did we ever get an "official" interpretation on this?

Did we ever get an "official" interpretation on this?

Not yet.

I e-mailed Gary Whelchel, the director of officials in Arizona who is on the NFHS rules committee.

This is his reply, the bold caps are Mr. Whelchel's response:

Gary this is a play that has been debated on the officiating.com forum and I'd appreciate your thoughts.

2.8 seconds left A1 has a throw in from their endline after a made basket by team B, that was following a timeout. A1 throws the ball to A2, who is also OOB MUST BE OOB AT THE ENDLINE, who then passes it to A3 near the division line. The horn goes off just after A3 catches the ball.

The administering official chopped in time, and the timer started the clock, when A2 caught the pass from A1.MISTAKE BY THE OFFICIAL - NOT A CORRECTABLE ERROR.

What, if anything, is the solution to this play? BY RULE, THE GAME IS OVER

5-9-1 says the timer should start the clock on the officials signal. CORRECT, AND THAT IS WHAT THE TIMER DID.

5-9-4 says that it should start on the touch by a player on the floor. THE OFFICIAL SHOULD BE CHOPPING IN THE CLOCK WHEN IT IS TOUCHED ON THE FLOOR

We have case play 5.10.1.C that deals with an official's error being non-correctable. CORRECT

We also have 2-3 since this play is not exactly covered by rule or case play. CORRECT - BUT THIS IS COVERED IN THAT IT IS NOT CORRECTABLE, BY RULE.


Some are saying it is a timer's error, so we should fix it by applying those rules. NOT A TIMERS ERROR

Others say it is an official's error, since the timer followed 5-9-1, and the official did not follow 5-9-4. IT IS AN OFFICIALS ERROR

I'm leaning toward official's error and using 2-3 to correct it, by running the play over with 2.8 on the clock and A's ball with running privileges. THIS WOULD BE THE WISE THING TO DO AND THE FAIR THING TO DO, AND I COULD SUPPORT IT, BUT, KEEP IN MIND THAT IT IS NOT A CORRECTABLE ERROR, BY RULE, AND THIS ANSWER IS NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY RULE REFERENCE.


It appears that Mr. Whelchel would support using 2-3, but by rule...covered by 5.10.1.C... the game is over.

[Edited by blindzebra on Dec 15th, 2004 at 06:58 PM]

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.

Not official though
 

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

Re: Not official though
 

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.

Re: Not official though
 

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.

Re: Re: Not official though
 

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.

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.

[/B][/QUOTE]Somehow, I think that I'll just wait until I see a case play issued for this one, or maybe something posted on the NFHS web site. Mary Struckhoff has been wrong too many times before and has had to retract her spur-of-the-moment rulings. And your track record has had a few bumps along the way too. It's not that I don't believe you. It's that I do believe that this particular ruling, if there actually was one, ain't gonna stand up. And seeing that it's not an official ruling, I'll think that I'll just wait and see.

Oh, and please don't try to tell me that Mary's reply to your e-mail actually does constitute an official ruling from the NFHS. That dog don't hunt.

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.

JR:

I am not that crazy about taking time of the clock myself because the officials do have definite knowledge of the time left in the game and if I had been the Referee in the game I would have reset the clock to the time it showed when it was stopped for the timeout.

But the point that many people are missing is that R5-S9-A4 is the governing rule. It is first among equals. The game clock cannot start before the criteria of this rule is met. This criteria has to be met before the Trail or Timer can do anything. If the criteria of R5-S9-A4 are met, then for all intents and purposes, the clock starts then not before or later regardless of what the Trail or Timer did or did not do before the criteria of R5-S9-A4 are met.

When rules conflict, one rule has to take precedence over the other. A case in point was whether the line-up could be changed without penalty so that a substitute could shoot the free throws when the game is to start with a technical foul. One section says that anybody including incoming substitutes can shoot the free throws, but another section says that the starting lineup can't be changed without penalty, with exceptions. Well, the interpretation was that the incoming substitute could shoot the free throws and there would be no penalty for changing the starting lineup. The reasoning being that for all intents and purposes the game had in effect started for the purposes of changing the starting lineup when the technical foul was committed. Then a few years ago, the Rules Committee clarified that exception in the rules.

I cannot endorse your comment about Mary not being able to connect the dots. There have been times when I have disagreed with Mary over philosophy, I know for a fact that she is very open to discussion. I think that you are being very unfair with your comment.

MTD, Sr.

Mark, I just don't think that Mary is as rules-knowledgeable as the other members of the Rules Committee. She does a great job as "editor", but "editing" rules is completely different than "making" or "interpreting" the rules, and "editing" is her main job. That was the point that I was trying to make. There was no intent to run Mary down or slag her in any way. I've met her before and she's a very nice person.

As for your interpretation on this particular play, I can certainly see your point--but I'm really not comfortable with it for reasons that I've posted before. Blind Zebra's points seem to be closer to my own take on this one. It would be nice if the FED would address this particular play, so that we do have some guidance if it ever does come up.

For the final time, you are adding what you want to fit your argument.

5-9 is about HOW THE CLOCK STARTS.

5-9-1 gives the how, which is on the OFFICIAL'S SIGNAL, 5-9-2 tells when that signal happens on a jump ball, 5-9-3 says when it happens on a free throw, and 5-9-4 says when the OFFICIAL SIGNALS ON A THROW IN.

Where does it authorize the timer to IGNORE the signal? I can see where it authorizes the timer to start the clock per rule, 5-9-2,3,4, if the official NEGLECTS to signal, yet our official did not neglect the signal, he INCORRECTLY gave the signal.

blindzebra:

You are missing the most important point, and that is the duties of the Game Official and the Timer (R5-S9-A1) cannot be carried out until the criteria of R5-S9-A4 are met. Article 4 has to occur first before Articl 1 can come into play. I guess you could compare this play with the question: If a tree falls in the woods and there is nobody present to hear it fall, has it fallen? And the answer is yes. The starts because of Article 4, not because of Article 1. It does not matter whehter the Game Official or Timer followed Article 1, the criteria for Article 4 was met the the clock did not start per the criteria of Article 4.

MTD, Sr.

Mark you are ignoring rules that don't pertain to your opinion
 

Mark,
Yes A4 should happen before the clock starts, no one disagrees with that. However an error was made. We all agree with that. Since an error was made, we have to decide who made the error to decide how to proceed. Since A1 says the timer should start the clock when the official signals, then the error goes to the official. Since the official made the error then we can decide how to handle it. Mark how can you disregard rules, A1 of the rule clearly states that the clock operator is to start it on the the signal from the referee...

As for Mary and her interp, oddly enough I emailed the NFHS to get an interp, the only official interps they will give are to the individual states, not individuals, so by the NFHS own rules that cannot be an official interp. For that and some reasons mentioned above, I am not buying Mary's ruling either. One of the reasons, is this, you gave her your interp basically and asked her to agree or disagree, what you should have done was give her the play and let her come up with her own interp with no undue influence...

[Edited by cmathews on Dec 18th, 2004 at 03:55 PM]

I think everyone is focusing far too much attention on the timer.

Basic question - when is the CLOCK supposed to start? Answer - when the final pass is touched inbounds. If the clock starts before then, there is an obvious timing error (I don't care who caused it) and it needs to be fixed.

That was my understanding too. Right at the front of the rules and case book is a little printed message that states:

<i>"Requests for basketball rules interpretations or explanations should be directed to the state association responsible for the high school basketball program in your state. The NFHS will assist in answering rules questions from state associations whenever called upon".</i>

We already have a reply on this one from Arizona that should be official, and now we have a different reply from the NFHS rules editor. That's why I think I'll wait to see something in writing come down from the NFHS.

Btw, that's an old trick that you picked up on Mark using. It's always easier to convince someone if you just supply info that will support your stance. I useta use that one at budget time every year- before I retired. The best way to present this situation is to just send the details and simply ask for a ruling and explanation.

I've agreed with that all along. That's also why I can't understand how you can put anything less than 2.8 seconds back on the clock when that's the only "official information" on time that you have on this play.

I've been saying all along that it should be 2.8.

No, you are missing the point. You can't pick and choose what rule you want to follow and arbitrarily decide which rule to use.

5-9-1 is what tells the timer to start the clock on the signal. 5-9-2, 3, and 4 tell the OFFICIAL when to signal.

The timer followed 5-9-1, that makes this an OFFICIAL'S ERROR.

You also have a timing error in 5.10.1.C, but it was with the official's count, so by rule it can not be fixed. Our play is no different, you have an official who DID not do the prescribed mechanic correctly, thus causing time to expire.

Until you can find a rule or case play that says the timer is authorized to ignore the official's signal, you have no argument. The timer started the clock per the rules, and this is an official's error.

Thank you Mark.

MTD, Sr.

Our older son was competing in the first H.S. swim meet of his career and while I was watching the meet before he was to swim, I thought of a play that will show that NFHS R5-S9-A4 takes precedence over R5-S9-A1.

B1 is Team B’s best three-point field goal shooter, but he is not one of the five best defensive players on Team B. Team B scores a field goal to cut Team A’s lead to one point. Team A inbounds the ball and B2 immediately commits a common foul against A1. Team A is in the double bonus. A1’s first free throw attempt is successful. B6, a much better defensive player than B1, replaces B1 after A1’s first free throw attempt. Coach B has B1 remain at the Scorer’s/Timer’s Table. Coach B wants B1 to replace B6 at the first opportunity to re-enter the game. A2 commits a free throw violation during A1’s second free throw attempt. Team B is awarded a designated throw-in on the end line in its backcourt because of A2 free throw violation. B2 will attempt the throw-in for Team B. Team A has 7’-00” tall A3 guard B2. The Trail official places the ball at B2’s disposal and keeps one arm raised with an open hand to signify that the clock shall remain stopped. B2 releases the ball in an attempt to pass the ball over A3. A3 blocks B2’s pass back against the wall behind B2. The ball goes from A3’s hands to the wall so quickly that the Trail official cannot do anything but to sound his whistle to stop play because of the out-of-bounds violation by A3; the Trail’s raised hand is never lowered.

From this point, the play has four different options. The game clock’s visible display can be shown in either (1) whole seconds (GC-1), or (2) tenths of a second (GC-2). The game clock controller unit has a LCD that shows the Timer how much time is on the game clock; the LCD shows the time in tenths of a second no matter which of the two types of visible displays are used.

When the game clock was stopped for B2’s common foul, the game clock with the visible display in whole seconds shows 11 seconds, and the game clock with the visible display in tenths of a second shows 11.9 seconds. The LCD display on both controllers show 00:11.9 second. We now have the four plays below:


After the Trail sounds his whistle:

Play A-1: The visible display of GC-1 shows 11 seconds and the LCD shows 11.9 seconds.

Play A-2: The visible display of GC-2 shows 11.9 seconds and the LCD shows 11.9 seconds.

Play B-1: The visible display of GC-1 shows 11 seconds and the LCD shows 11.1 seconds.

Play B-2: The visible display of GC-2 shows 11.1 seconds and the LCD shows 11.1 seconds.

Can B1 re-enter the game and replace B6 before Team B attempts its throw-in due to A3’s out-of-bounds violation?

What you described is an official NEGLECTING to signal time in on a throw in touched on the floor, and has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the play in question. This play falls under a Timer's error, because of the little, "The timer is AUTHORIZED to start the clock per rule if the official NEGLECTS to signal," in 5-9-1.

Once again, 5-9-1 is the rule that STARTS the clock. 5-9-2, 3 and 4 are when that SIGNAL is to be given.

Yes B1 may re-enter, and I'd leave the clock as it is, because the only options, by rule, is to take a full second off the clock for lag time, or go back to the last know time.

I read this differently - 5.10.1(C) says that you cannot correct the OFFICIAL based on the CLOCK (i.e., call a 10 second violation, give the ball to B, and reset the clock to 2 seconds).

In this case, the official was not following prescribed mechanics - where in the rule book, case book, or official's manual does it say to signal the clock to start before the throw-in is legally touched inbounds? (On an inbounds play, of course.)

I have to disagree - 2, 3, and 4 start the clock, 1 refers to giving a signal.

Art. 1 states that the clock "shall be started when the official signals time-in." If that takes precedent over 2, 3, and 4, we have two problems.

(1) A1 is awarded 2 free throws, and the C signals the clock to start when the ball is bounced to A1 before the first shot. If article 1 takes precedent (over art. 3 in this case), then the clock should run, and both the center official and the timer are correct in having the clock run (as the clock, by rule, should start when the official says it should start).

(2) The syntax of the rule also provides a problem. If article 1 has precedent, then the timer (if the official neglects) can start the clock "as per rule." If articles 2-4 only refer to the signal, then the only rule for starting the clock is article 1 - and the only way to start the clock as per rule is on the official's signal - which was never given - so the clock can't run.

Mark that is the point, the official erred, not the timer, the timer is supposed to start the clock when signalled to..if you can find somewhere that it says the timer will start the clock when properly signalled by the official then I will change my stance...otherwise this is an officials error and it sucks....but I would still invoke 2-3 give the ball to the offended team at the original spot and reset the clock to the original time...

The rules are there in the order of:

a) What starts the clock, which is the official's signal rule 5-9-1.

b) When that signal should occur for a jump ball, a missed FT, and a throw in, 5-9-2, 3 and 4.

a) Is the only one that has baring for a Timer's error, UNLESS the official NEGLECTS to signal time in, then and only then do 5-9-2 thru 4 come into play for the timer.

If it were the way you and MTD are suggesting, wouldn't the rules read the timer should start the clock on the action of the players? There would be no need for 5-9-1 even being there.

So unless there is some hidden rule that gives the timer the authority to ignore the official's signal, and there are 5 case plays that deal with errors coming from the Timer ignoring the official's signal to properly start or stop the clock, I'd say that rule does not exist.

This is 100% an OFFICIAL'S ERROR, because there is ZERO rules support to say otherwise.

100% correct, and luckily in Arizona, we have a rules interpreter who will back that ruling, even though by rule the game is over 5.10.1.C.

blindzebra:

I have reposted my play above in order to discuss your response of Dec 18/Sat., 2004 10:28pm which was:

"What you described is an official NEGLECTING to signal time in on a throw in touched on the floor, and has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the play in question. This play falls under a Timer's error, because of the little, "The timer is AUTHORIZED to start the clock per rule if the official NEGLECTS to signal," in 5-9-1.

Once again, 5-9-1 is the rule that STARTS the clock. 5-9-2, 3 and 4 are when that SIGNAL is to be given.

Yes B1 may re-enter, and I'd leave the clock as it is, because the only options, by rule, is to take a full second off the clock for lag time, or go back to the last know time."


You are forgetting some of the fundamentals of basketball. Here are some examples: (1) The Scorer’s signal does not cause a live ball to become dead. (2) The official’s whistle does not always cause a live ball to become dead. And (3) The Timer’s signal does not always cause a live ball to become dead. It is the same for a live ball becoming dead. The vast majority of the time it is a player’s actions cause a live ball to become dead.

At one time there were only two ways that an official could cause a dead ball to become live: (1) The official released the ball for a jump ball. And (2) the official placed the ball at the disposal of a free throw shooter. During throw-ins the ball did not change from a dead ball to a live ball until the throw-in was touched a player or was touched by a player on the court.

What am I saying? It is actions by the players, for the most part, that cause a live ball to become dead. This same logic says that it is players’ actions that dictate when the game clock starts. It is the actions of the players that cause the game clock to start on a throw-in, not the actions of the official and/or Timer that causes the game clock to start. And more importantly, the failure of an official and/or Timer to do or not to do something does negate the fact that it is players’ actions that causes the clock to start. What does this mean? It means that if the official signals time in and/or the Timer starts the clock before the players’ actions cause the game clock to start, the players’ actions dictate what happens next. The players’ actions cannot be negated and the time on the game clock is not correct. What to do? What to do? Correct the game clock and resume play from the point of interruption.


bz, lets look your answer to the four plays that I posted. You stated that B1 can replace B6 in all four plays. You have stated that the game official made a mistake in not signaling time in, and mistakes by the game officials (not to be confused with correctable errors) cannot be corrected.


In Plays A-1 and A-2, the Timer did not start the game clock because the game official did not signal time in. Was the Timer correct in not starting the game clock because the game official did not signal time in, or did the Timer make a mistake in not starting the game clock as authorized by R5-S9-A1? Which is it? If the Timer was correct in not starting the game clock then B1 cannot re-enter the game and replace B6. If the Timer did start the game clock as authorized by R5-S9-A1, then B1 can re-enter the game to replace B6, but how can the game clock be adjusted to reflect the correct time, if the game officials do not have definite knowledge of how much time should actually be on the game clock?


In Plays B-1 and B-2, was the Timer incorrect in starting the game clock because the game official was incorrect in not signaling time in or was the Timer correct in starting the game clock as authorized in R5-S9-A1? Which is it? If the time was incorrect in starting the game clock, then B1 cannot re-enter the game to replace B6, and does that mean that the game clock must be reset to show no elapsed time
? If the Timer was correct in starting the game clock then B1 can re-enter the game to replace B6 and we resume play with the time on the game clock as the correct time.


We have two sets of plays that are identical for all intents and purposes, yet by using your logic we can have conflicting interpretations. What to do? What to do?


How do we solve this conundrum? Easy use logic and apply the fundamentals of the game. The players’ actions caused the game clock to start, whether or not time was actually runoff the game clock. Therefore B1 can re-enter the game for B6. The time on the game clock in all four plays remain as is when play was stopped for A3’s out-of-bounds violation. The type of action in all four plays happen so very quickly, that it is equally possible for the Timer to start and stop the game clock or to not to start and stop the game clock.

This logic is no different than resuming play in our original play with a throw-in by Team A closest to the spot where A3 caught A2’s throw-in with no time run off the game clock. Yes, I do not agree with Mary with regard to the amount of time on the game clock, but that is a minor point, when there are officials that are advocating one of two actions that are not supported by rule: (1) A do over of the entire throw-in from the point the end of the timeout, or (2) the game is over.

MTD, Sr.

How do we solve this conundrum?

[/B][/QUOTE]Um,maybe by waiting until we see something in the rule or case book, or even posted on the NFHS web site, that will definitively tell us how to handle plays like this? :D

If I wanted to read a War and Peace sized novel, I'd do it. I really believe you go into all this detail so that we can't see just how flawed your argument is.

This is simple, and if you can't make a point in a couple of paragraphs, you don't have one.

Your play of the spiked throw in IS SUPPORTED by 5-9-1 reguardless of whether the timer started the clock or not. If they start it it is supported by rule, under the official NEGLECTED to signal part of 5-9-1, if not, neither had the time to react to the interval of when the clock should have started and stopped again.

The sub IS allowed because the clock SHOULD have ran, whether it did or not.

Lastly, just what does this play have to do with our original play? The rule says the timer is to start the clock on the signal, that signal is given BASED on the players actions. We have an authorization for the timer to start on the action if there is NO SIGNAL. There are 5 case plays dealing with the timer ignoring the official's signal to start or stop the clock, and how to fix them, yet you are INCORRECTLY suggesting that the timer SHOULD ignore the signal in this case.

Where are the fundamentals in that decision?;)

[Edited by blindzebra on Dec 19th, 2004 at 05:04 PM]

Um,maybe by waiting until we see something in the rule or case book, or even posted on the NFHS web site, that will definitively tell us how to handle plays like this? :D [/B][/QUOTE]

We know how to handle it correctly in Arizona.:D

[QUOTE]Originally posted by blindzebra
[B]If I wanted to read a War and Peace sized novel, I'd do it. I really believe you go into all this detail so that we can't see just how flawed your argument is.

This is simple, and if you can't make a point in a couple of paragraphs, you don't have one.

Your play of the spiked throw in IS SUPPORTED by 5-9-1 reguardless of whether the timer started the clock or not. If they start it it is supported by rule, under the official NEGLECTED to signal part of 5-9-1, if not, neither had the time to react to the interval of when the clock should have started and stopped again.

The sub IS allowed because the clock SHOULD have ran, whether it did or not.

Lastly, just what does this play have to do with our original play? The rule says the timer is to start the clock on the signal, that signal is given BASED on the players actions. We have an authorization for the timer to start on the action if there is NO SIGNAL. There are 5 case plays dealing with the timer ignoring the official's signal to start or stop the clock, and how to fix them, yet you are INCORRECTLY suggesting that the timer SHOULD ignore the signal in this case.

Where are the fundamentals in that decision?;)

[Edited by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. on Dec 19th, 2004 at 06:22 PM]

Mark this is directly from your longwinded post:

MTD says, "You have stated that the game official made a mistake in not signaling time in, and mistakes by the game officials (not to be confused with correctable errors) cannot be corrected."

Let's look at that last line again, MTD says, " Mistakes by the game officials (not to be confused with correctable errors) CANNOT BE CORRECTED."

Would that be like erroneously signaling time to start, as in rule 5-9-1? :D

That's completely ignorant!!

Edited to delete that picture from my post.

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

You should get banned from this forum for that post. I'd suggest you work some Special Olympic events, and perhaps you'd be less likely to make such an utterly stupid and insensitive post.

You obviously got nothing from it, because anyone with a heart and a brain that spent any time around the developmentally disabled, could not have used that picture in a post.

This is not about MTD and my debate, this is about your use of that disgusting picture, so don't even TRY to deflect this. You used that sick image, so you are damned sure going to take the heat you completely deserve.

It's been brought, it figures you had not noticed. What will your next username be?

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.

JR:

What did I miss?

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

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?;)

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.

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.

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]

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.

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]

I did not mean to offend
 

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.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by blindzebra
[B]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]

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.

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.

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