A slightly interesting one

[Daryl H. Long]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

If the T had granted the timeout like he should have, there would have been no timing problem.

[/B]

I agree that the trail shoulda called the TO. There was no reason to ignore the request(especially twice), and I imagine that whoever was evaluating the game probably brought that fact up to the T. Basically, though, this really isn't relevant to this sitch, is it? It's just a missed call, and you can't give it CPR and bring it back to life, can you?

But, in this sitch, the L finally did grant the TO request with one second to go. The timer then ran the one second off. As this was a high school game, would you really put the second back up after the FT's for the T and have a throw-in? Or was I reading your post wrong? [/B][/QUOTE]

JR:

I will reply as if I were the calling official. Even though an excess TO by Team W was requested I am bound by rule to honor the request. Knowing time is running out I glance at the clock and see 1.0 seconds. Having definite knowledge of time I will put that time back on the clock. (lag time does not apply in this case)

1. Put 1.0 seconds on the clock.
2. Team L: 2 FT's (any player)
3. Team L throwin at division line opposite table.
4. Let the game play itself out.

Possible scenarios: Team W will now be forced to steal inbound pass or foul to have any chance to win or force OT depending on result of FT's. We have all seen bizarre endings to games. Maybe someone on Team L will request a timeout during the Throwin to avoid the 5 second violation.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Daryl H. Long

But, in this sitch, the L finally did grant the TO request with one second to go. The timer then ran the one second off. As this was a high school game, would you really put the second back up after the FT's for the T and have a throw-in? Or was I reading your post wrong? [/B]

I will reply as if I were the calling official. Even though an excess TO by Team W was requested I am bound by rule to honor the request. Knowing time is running out I glance at the clock and see 1.0 seconds. Having definite knowledge of time I will put that time back on the clock. (lag time does not apply in this case)

1. Put 1.0 seconds on the clock.
2. Team L: 2 FT's (any player)
3. Team L throwin at division line opposite table.
4. Let the game play itself out.

[/B][/QUOTE]Daryl, the original post said that there was one second on the clock when the whistle blew. Casebook play 5.10.1COMMENT says "By interpretation, lag or reaction time is limited to one second when the official's signal is heard and/or seen clearly". Casebook play 5.10.1SitD(b) says that you can't put one second back up even if you were looking at the clock when you blew the whistle. Iow, lag time does apply if you are looking at the clock when you blow your whistle.

I can't think of any rules justification that would allow you to put that one second back on the clock in this particular situation. Thoughts?

[JugglingReferee]

My personal belief is that the official nailed the call.

Game over.

[Daryl H. Long]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

I will reply as if I were the calling official. Even though an excess TO by Team W was requested I am bound by rule to honor the request. Knowing time is running out I glance at the clock and see 1.0 seconds. Having definite knowledge of time I will put that time back on the clock. (lag time does not apply in this case)

1. Put 1.0 seconds on the clock.
2. Team L: 2 FT's (any player)
3. Team L throwin at division line opposite table.
4. Let the game play itself out.

[/B]

Daryl, the original post said that there was one second on the clock when the whistle blew. Casebook play 5.10.1COMMENT says "By interpretation, lag or reaction time is limited to one second when the official's signal is heard and/or seen clearly". Casebook play 5.10.1SitD(b) says that you can't put one second back up even if you were looking at the clock when you blew the whistle. Iow, lag time does apply if you are looking at the clock when you blow your whistle.

I can't think of any rules justification that would allow you to put that one second back on the clock in this particular situation. Thoughts? [/B][/QUOTE]

JR,


The case situation I used was 5.10.1 Sit B and Comment.

In the comment, the two sentences following the one you quoted are the key. They read: One second or the 'reaction' time is interpreted to have elapsed from the time the signal was made until the official glanced at the clock. The additional [Time] which subsequently ran off the clock is considered a timing mistake.

In our case if I sounded my whistle to stop clock, then glance up and see 1.0 second then according to the comment lag time is already accounted for and any time theat susequently runs off the clock is a timing mistake. To correct I will reset the clock to that which I had definite knowledge. Definite knowledge is interpreted to mean what the official SAW. Therefore put 1 saecond on the clock. If I let clock remain at 0:00 it seems I have allowed for lag time twice.

That is why I do not agree with the ruling in Case 5.10.1 Situation D Scenario (b). If the comment is true above then lag time was already accounted for when the official saw 5 on the clock. Why should the timer get ANOTHER 1 second lag time? The ruling for scenario (b) should be included with (c) and (d).

Also, I find it ironic that in all the 5.10.1 case situations the clock is reset to the EXACT time the official saw. The reason why is because lag time has already been accounted for. The ruling for Case play 5.10.1 SITUATION D (b) allows for lag time twice.

[Edited by Daryl H. Long on Mar 17th, 2005 at 10:49 PM]

[JugglingReferee]

Interesting Daryl.

[Mark Dexter]

I absolutely hate the answer, but I'm going to have to agree with you - technical foul - 2 FT's with 0.0 on the clock.

And can we PLEASE work on changing NFHS timing rules to something that makes sense (maybe no lag time protection for clocks that show tenths of a second).

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Daryl H. Long

The case situation I used was 5.10.1 Sit B and Comment.

In the comment, the two sentences following the one you quoted are the key. They read: One second or the 'reaction' time is interpreted to have elapsed from the time the signal was made until the official glanced at the clock. The additional [Time] which subsequently ran off the clock is considered a timing mistake.

In our case if I sounded my whistle to stop clock, then glance up and see 1.0 second then according to the comment lag time is already accounted for and any time theat susequently runs off the clock is a timing mistake. To correct I will reset the clock to that which I had definite knowledge. Definite knowledge is interpreted to mean what the official SAW. Therefore put 1 saecond on the clock. If I let clock remain at 0:00 it seems I have allowed for lag time twice.

[/B]

There's the fallacy in your logic, Daryl. The official's signal, the whistle, was made with one second to go in the quarter in this situation. One second of allowable lag time then ran off the clock. That's exactly what your cite, CB play 5.10.1SitB-COMMENT is telling you. QUOTE "By interepretation, lag or reaction time is limited to one second when the official's signal is heard and/or seen clearly".UNQUOTE. Your own citation tells you that you are wrong.No additional time to that allowable one-second lag time ran off the clock in this situation. In this case, it really doesn't matter whether whether the official is looking at the clock or not; that's a red herring. When the signal occurred is what the rule relies on. Time ran out one second after that signal; that one second is allowable lag time and the rules say that it can't be put back on.

[Nevadaref]

Originally posted by rockyroad

You're right bigwhistle...it's still a POI - 10-4-1-a

There's no denying it, I messed that one up. The Foul/Penalty chart in Appendix IV on page 169 of book states that it is a POI throw-in after the loss of possession.

I knew it was loss of possession and must have gotten the throw-in spot confused with the Men's Intentional Technical foul.

[JugglingReferee]

I think I may send this one in to the PTB, just to see what they see.

[refnrev]

Originally posted by JugglingReferee
[What happens next?

I will post what the officials did later on, after a bunch of replies. [/B]

Here's what the TRAIL official called:

He whistled and granted a TO.

After the timeout, he then assessed a technical foul and awarded L3 two shots. First one went in. Game over.

Congrats to refnrev for calling the bank! (Except that he reversed the city references.)
__________________________________________________ _________

Hey I'm a ref. Doesn't automatically make me blind, stupid, and big-time homer? How could I be expected to get the cities right?