Here's the stich.

This actually happened in a provincial high school finals game.

Team W and Team L. (Named after the city they're from.) There is one official from the city of W and one from the city of L, to give a "neutral crew". Officials tell each team that they have no timeouts remaining. Twice. They also tell the players. The coaches each told their respective players that there are no timeouts left.

Tie game, 5 seconds to go. L1 on the line to shoot a 1-and-1. First shot misses. W1 rebounds. The LEAD official on the FT (now the TRAIL on the defensive missed-FT rebound) is from the city of W and twice ignores W2's request for a TO. W2 runs over to the ref from the city of L and requests a TO. The timeout is granted (in that the official blew his whistle - I do not know if he 'pointed' to the Team W bench). At the time of the whistle, there was 1.0 seconds on the clock. The clock runs out and the buzzer sounds.

What happens next?

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

Here's that lag time thing again. By interpretation, the timer is allowed up to, but not more than, one second to stop the clock from the time that the official's signal is clearly recognized.

I'd have to say that the game is over.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by JugglingReferee
[B]Here's the stich.


Tie game, 5 seconds to go. L1 on the line to shoot a 1-and-1. First shot misses. W1 rebounds. The LEAD official on the FT (now the TRAIL on the defensive missed-FT rebound) is from the city of W and twice ignores W2's request for a TO. W2 runs over to the ref from the city of L and requests a TO. The timeout is granted (in that the official blew his whistle - I do not know if he 'pointed' to the Team W bench). At the time of the whistle, there was 1.0 seconds on the clock. The clock runs out and the buzzer sounds.
__________________________________________________ _________
posted by refnrev
1. Why did he ignore the request for a TO? Once I can see. Twice is suspect.
2. Did the official who granted the TO give the T?
3. Did they consider it a timer's error and put time on since there was only 1.0 left?
__________________________________________________ _________
Here's my guess on what happened: "W ignores the TO requests and then "L" grants it. L gives them a T for the extra T0. Because there is 1.0 on the clock and the clock didn't stop the game would be over except for the T. W hits one of the free throws. L fan's and coaches go nuts. Do I win?



[Edited by refnrev on Mar 16th, 2005 at 11:39 PM]

Agree, I think the game is over too. Question is why didn't the official grant the excessive timeout?

It's a T and you shoot the two free throws. Lag time doesn't apply here since both officials have definite knowledge the technical foul happened before the end of the period.

Supporting NF rules are 5-6-3a and 3-3-2. The latter explains when a foul should be disregarded at the end of a quarter and this situation does not qualify.

Yep, sorry, I missed the part about it being a tie game. I still hold that you can't put any time back up, but you do assess the T and shoot the FTs if the whistle sounded before the horn.

1) I am going to assume that the game was being played under either NFHS or NCAA rules.

2) In either case, the T was wrong in not granting W1's request for a timeout.

3) W1's request should have been granted.

4) After the timeout is over, Team L shoots two free throws as part of the penalty for the excess timeout technical foul.

5.1) NFHS: After the free throws, Team L receives the ball for a throw-in at the division line opposite the Table for a throw-in.

5.2) NCAA Men's: After the free throws, Team W receives that ball for a throw-in nearest the spot where the ball was when it was granted its timeout.

5.3) NCAA Women's: After the free throws, Team L receives the ball for a throw-in: a) nearest the spot where the ball was when Team W was granted its timeout, or b) at the division line. Since this is not a point of interuption technical foul penalty, I think that the correct throw-in spot is (a). My college schedule did not include any women's games this year so I am a little hazy on this particular penalty.

6) If this game was being played under FIBA rules Team W would never had been able to request an excess timeout.

7) I do not know how this would be handled under NBA/WNBA rules.

MTD, Sr.

<img src="http://www.illinoishighschoolsports.com/ubb/graemlins/pat.gif">

Wooo, you're not the only one, I missed it too.

Are you gonna put time back on the clock for all three rule sets, Mark? Including FED?

I agree with those who have said that the T was wrong to ignore the request. Also, I concur that the T should be assessed with no time left in regulation and 2 FTs awarded. No time should be put back on clock.

In this case a single made FT will end the game since the FTs are part of the 4th quarter.


Lastly, the throw-in is at the division line for the opponent following the FTs for the excessive TO in NCAA women's play.

JR:

I am tired of discussing timing problems. If the T had granted the timeout like he should have, there would have been no timing problem.

MTD, Sr.

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

[/B][/QUOTE]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?

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.)

Points that were brought up:
1. How can you grant a timeout with no time on the clock. Once the buzzer went, the quarter ended. Game tied means that OT starts right after 4Q ends. A TO to start the OT is granted.

My reply was that in sitch's like this, the lag time rule is a rule that is invoked after all other rules have been completed. It's sole purpose it to determine how much time remains on the clock, not when an event occurred. So, the rule governing the granting and penalizing an excessive timeout is not ignored. It just so happens that the team's request was granted with less than 1.1 seconds to go.

The person disagreeing with me does so on game management grounds. To me, this is a situation where game management can't do anything to save the day. The only arguement I can see is the official from the city of W says something like he went to blow his whistle, but no air came out. He could claim that he saw (picking an arbitrary amount of time) 3.7 seconds on the clock.

W2 pulled a Webber. A million chinese won't care tomorrow.

Really? That is a new one on me. The ball will belong to the team that did not call the excessive time out. They will get the ball at the POI spot, however, instead of the division line.

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

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.

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. <font color = red>(lag time does not apply in this case)</font>

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 <b>when the official's signal is heard and/or seen clearly</b>". Casebook play 5.10.1SitD(b) says that you can't put <b>one</b> second back up even if you were looking at the clock when you blew the whistle. Iow, lag time <b>does</b> 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?

Game Over
 

My personal belief is that the official nailed the call.

Game over.

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 <b>when the official's signal is heard and/or seen clearly</b>". Casebook play 5.10.1SitD(b) says that you can't put <b>one</b> second back up even if you were looking at the clock when you blew the whistle. Iow, lag time <b>does</b> 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]

Interesting Daryl.

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).

There's the fallacy in your logic, Daryl. The official's <b>signal</b>, the whistle, was made with <b>one</b> 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. <b>QUOTE</b> <i>"By interepretation, lag or reaction time is limited to one second when the <b>official's signal</b> is heard and/or seen clearly"</i>.<b>UNQUOTE</b>. Your own citation tells you that you are wrong.<b>No</b> 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. <b>When</b> the <b>signal</b> 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.

Thanks bigwhistle!
 

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.

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

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?