Dan_ref:

The previous thread was closed before I could respond to your analysis of the over and under, but I am with you on the over. I too, will bet $5 on the over.

Be that as it may, I stand by my post in the closed thread.

MTD, Sr.

Mark, my friends call me Dan. You can call me Sir. :p

I mostly agree with you - if A2 catches the ball before the horn (incorrectly) sounds then take off *some* time off & go to the new spot. I can't imagine any referee working any game of consequence that would not have a sense of how much time would have correctly elapsed. However, if the horn clearly sounds while the ball is in the air blow the whole thing dead & do it over. In either case have a good heart to heart with the timer.

As for your bet - I'll take your bet on the closed thread, I'm going with the under. You can paypal me the $5.

:)

Do-overs are only allowed during the SEC tournament in NCAA Women's play. :D

I have to agree with MTD on this one.
4.1 on the clock, ball OOB near the division line.

Don't negate a completed throw-in. That was action which took place and has to count.

Since you don't know exactly how much time to take off the clock, don't take off any. Tell the coaches that the timer made a mistake and that's the way it goes.

Hopefully, the NFHS will adopt the .3 minimum rule.

That's patently ridiculous. It's completely contrary to the very explicit language of R5-10-1.

It is absolutely not "patently ridiculus" because it is the correct thing by rule.

MTD, Sr.

Cite a rule that negates R5-10 then and backs up that statement, please.

You have a throw-in with 4.1 seconds left and a team having to go 84 feet to score. The timer scews up (please let it be the HOME timer), so you now correct the timing mistake by giving that team a throw-in with 42 feet to go to score and the exact same amount of time left on the clock. Helluva deal for the offense! The defense might not be too happy with your reasoning though. Hell, if I was the home timer, I'd screw up again and give my team a throw-in under the basket that they're shooting at. You'd go along with that, and give them the whole 4.1 seconds to boot too. Ludicrous!

Questions:
(1) If the throwing team hadda scored on a quick, long pass with the clock not starting instead of the play cited, and you discovered the clock problem during the dead ball after they scored, are you gonna count the basket and then give the team that was scored on a throw-in with 4.1 seconds on the clock? Using your logic, you pretty well have to, don't you?
(2)If the player caught the first throw-in pass at center and then travelled, and you found out that the clock never started until <b>after</b> the travel, are you gonna give the other team the ball at center for the violation, and still give them the full 4.1 seconds also? Using your logic again, you have to, don't you?

As far as I can tell so far, you can't cite a rule that backs up your statement and negates R5-10, and your whole argument is based on the play happening in a space-time continuum where no time is ever consumed for actual happenings. Correct?

Lah me.

The ball was live...throwin completed/shot made...ball becomes dead when official blows whistle in response to the horn. The action stands and the next throwin will be located at the OOB spot nearest the ball when it became dead; there is no provision for canceling live ball action other than in the case of correctable errors.

The only question is how much time to put on the clock.

And the answer to that question is? Iow, if you don't know <b>exactly</b> how much time to put on the clock, <b>can</b> you, by rule(any rule), put any time back on the clock?

Or do you <b>haveta</b> leave it at 4.1 seconds, as Mark asserts?

You can have do-overs in the Olympics as well. Since the US team has not been as dominant lately they haven't had a reason to invoke the rule recently.I can't see myself telling coach B that his opponent gets a free ride to midcourt.

I got cut off the last time, so I didn't get a chance to mention I really like the seasoned salt on popcorn...

Anyway, I agree with Dan and JR - there is no way I can explain to a coach that beause of the person at the table the other team gets to take out the ball that much closer to the basket with no additional time off the clock. But since it's Monday and I'm feeling pretty wishy-washy, I'm not sure there's a specific rule allowing the do-over, either. My guess is the rules committee isn't specifically allowing one because I would think that would become one of the most over-used and abused rules in the book. From a practical standpoint, I can't see either coach getting upset with you if the play is re-started back at the endline with 4.1, and after you've had a good conversation with the timer. The only person I can see getting upset with that ruling might be MTD Sr., and the only way I would know it was him was if there was a statue and a stack of old rules books next to him in the stands...;)

How about when, on the do over, the team throws the ball away because the play they just drew up was now exposed. Team makes a valid and legal throwin to midcourt. The the ball becomes dead. Throwin at midcourt. There should be no debate on that issue.

As I said before, the question question is how much time, if any, do you adjust the clock by.

Camron:

I will put the check in the mail tomorrow morning. Thanks for coming to my defense.

MTD, Sr.

And the questions to you are still the same:
(1)If you don't know how much time to adjust the clock with, what rule will allow you to adjust the clock with a <b>guess</b>? Iow, what rule are you using to negate the very specific language of R5-10, Camron?
(2)If you can't use R5-10, then what rule are you using to move that throw-in to center if you <b>don't</b> take any time off the clock?

Mark is also saying that you don't take <b>any</b> time off the clock; you just give a new throw-in at center with the same original 4.1 seconds on the clock. Are you coming to his defense on that, Camron, as he so stated?

I think there was some question as to whether the horn went off before or after the catch in bounds. If the horn went off before the catch, then there was no valid and legal throw-in, so then where do you put the throw-in and how much time? The "what if" of the team then throwing it away has no basis in this decision. What if the team throws it away after they're at mid-court, because the drawn up play was designed for the backcourt? Do you not call a foul, because "what if" the player fouled is going to miss the free throw? "What if's" don't apply here, just the rules. From a practical standpoint, I still think there are only two possibilities. One, have your talk with the timer, put 4.1 back on the clock, and take the ball out on the endline. Or, two, get together with your partner(s) and figure out how much time elapsed from the catch until the horn went off (don't forget the talk with the timer), take off the elapsed time, and put the ball in play where the horn went off. But there is no way I can justify putting the ball in play where the horn went off with the full 4.1 seconds. This may be one of those situations that separates the "Rulebook Ronnies" from the common-sense officials. Maybe there is roundabout justification, but I would rather be remembered for doing it "slightly wrong" and seemingly fair to both teams.

Sorry Mark; does this mean I'm not getting a check this time? :)

From a practical standpoint, I still think there are only two possibilities. One, have your talk with the timer, put 4.1 back on the clock, and take the ball out on the endline. Or, two, get together with your partner(s) and figure out how much time elapsed from the catch until the horn went off (don't forget the talk with the timer), take off the elapsed time, and put the ball in play where the horn went off. But there is no way I can justify putting the ball in play where the horn went off with the full 4.1 seconds. This may be one of those situations that separates the "Rulebook Ronnies" from the common-sense officials. Maybe there is roundabout justification, but I would rather be remembered for doing it "slightly wrong" and seemingly fair to both teams.

[/B][/QUOTE]Amen. You always have to remember that there are <b>two</b> teams on the court, and it's our job to be equally fair to both of them. Letting a team go 42 feet upcourt without taking any time at all off the clock is blatantly unfair to the defense.

Amen. You always have to remember that there are <b>two</b> teams on the court, and it's our job to be equally fair to both of them. Letting a team go 42 feet upcourt without taking any time at all off the clock is blatantly unfair to the defense. [/B][/QUOTE]



JR:

Please do not talk about being blatantly unfair to the defense when you were willing the give the ball to the defense when your partner screwed up in your thread about blowing the ball dead during a throw-in.

MTD, Sr.

JR:

Please do not talk about being blatantly unfair to the defense when you were willing the give the ball to the defense when your partner screwed up in your thread about blowing the ball dead during a throw-in.

MTD, Sr. [/B][/QUOTE]Say what?

L'il reading comprehension problem, Mark? If you go back and re-read that thread, I think that you'd find out exactly what I would do. Btw, what I would do is different than what the rules state should be done in that particular thread. I was arguing the rules standpoint with you, mainly because you were wrong(again).

I certainly do have a problem with anybody that would let a team advance the ball half the length of the court on a throw-in without taking any time off the clock. Imo doing that <b>is</b> blatantly unfair.

Definite enough
 

No, you don't guess. You estimate. You have definite knowledge of when the clock should have started, how much time should have been on it, and when the horn sounded. You know that the period that transpired between first touching and the horn is obviously less than 4.1 seconds.

Given those conditions, your estimate couldn't be any less accurate than the estimate obtained from an official's count. BTW, 5-10 readily acknowledges that an official's count is only one source of "official information." It also does not say you need to have definite knowledge of exactly how much time elapsed, "definite knowledge relative to the time involved" is good enough.

RULE!!!
 

I definitely see both points of view here, but can someone point to me a rule that would negate what JR is saying at 5-10? Or is the "guesstimate" acceptable under NFHS rules?

Re: RULE!!!
 

I do not know of a rule that would negate what JR is saying about 5-10. I also do not know of a rule that supports what JR is saying about 5-10. JR and I disagree on how much latitude 5-10 gives an official to implement a common sense, obviously needed time correction.

Here's what the rule actually says:

SECTION 10 TIMER'S MISTAKES
ART. 1 . . . The referee may correct an obvious mistake by the timer to start or stop the clock properly only when he/she has definite information relative to the time involved.
ART. 2 . . . If the referee determines that the clock was not started or stopped properly, or if the clock did not run, an official's count or other official information can be used to make a correction.

You'll note that an official's count is not the only acknowledged source of official information. It is merely the only one specifically named.

Also note that it says nothing about absolute knowledge of how much time elapsed. For that you'd need a working clock and properly functioning clock operator.

But you do need to have "definite information relative to the time involved." In this case we have definite knowledge of three factors relative to the time involved:

• How much time was on the clock
• When the clock should have started
• When the horn sounded

You'd also have a pretty good idea of how much time transpired between the touch and the horn.

I'm not suggesting that we make a wild guess. I am asserting that given the circumstances it's possible to make a pretty accurate estimate. Another word for estimate is judgement. And we get paid to make judgements.

Your call.

In the real world, I don't have a problem at all with what you're proposing, BITSy. In the "Land of the Rules" however, it ain't gonna fly though. The "three known factors" that you listed above aren't relative at all. The only really relevant factor is the amount of time that <b>exactly</b> has to be put back on the clock. The rules say that you have to have <b>definite</b> information to make that decision. Iow "a pretty good idea" and "a pretty accurate estimate" just isn't good enough. Ideas and estimates don't comprise definite information. You have to know-say- whether you should take 1.1, 1.2 or 1.3 seconds off the original 4.1 seconds. You can't guess at which one of those to use. Rule 5-10 just won't let you do that. With that small amount of time left(4.1 seconds), even a difference of 0.1 of a second put back on the clock could be the difference as to whether a shot should be counted or not.

I can make the idea of taking some estimated time off the clock and then having a throw-in at center work. Most coaches are reasonable, and I'm sure I could talk them into that. However, if anybody ever protested, I don't think that I could also talk a rules committee hearing that protest into the same thing. When they ask me for justification from a rules' standpoint for what I've done, I really don't know what I can tell them. And if I ever gave a team a repeat throw-in 42 feet up the court without taking <b>any</b> time at all off the clock, as Mark suggested, well.....I wouldn't even wanna start thinking of how to explain that one.

Re: RULE!!!
 

No (or maybe yes). The rules are either unclear or unfair (or maybe both) depending on how it's interpreted. We will continue to have (at least) two camps on this issue until the FED (and / or the NCAA) issues a clarification.

What we can try to avoid is stirring the same s***.