Sell this one!

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Daryl H. Long
[/B]

I believe the NF makes mistakes in their printed material and will call them on it when I see it. If you don't belive the NF makes mistakes then read 3.4.15 Situation A on page 3 of the 05-06 NF Case Book. The ruling is WRONG. The correct ruling is A1 is a PLAYER and he alone gets the T. his status as a player does not change just because it is halftime.

[/B][/QUOTE]The ruling is wrong and Daryl H. Long is right?

You really ought to read the rule book more often, Daryl.

Rule 3-3-3- "A player becomes bench personnel after his/her substitute becomes a player or after notification of the coach following his/her disqualification".

His status changed from "player" to "bench personnel" as soon as the coach was notified of his disqualification. That's why the head coach get's an indirect "T"- he's responsible for the conduct of all "disqualified teammembers and all other bench personnel" as per the exact wording of rule 10-4. The penalty listed for violations of R10-4 says that the head coach gets an indirect "T" and the offender gets a direct "T".

That statement on p.3 of the case book is consistent with all of the pertinent rules in the rule book.

And whatintheheck does "halftime" have to do with anything? Halftime isn't mentioned in the statement on p.3 of the case book or anywhere in the actual case play.

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Dec 15th, 2005 at 03:45 AM]

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by blindzebra
[/B]

Just because he said .6 was on there at the whistle does not mean that an official was looking at the clock at that whistle. Any look after the whistle means whatever time was on the clock can be put back on. [/B][/QUOTE]And what was the exact time on the clock then after the official looked if he wasn't looking at the clock when he blew his whistle with 0.6 seconds left? Where can I find that information? Don't you need to have that exact information to put any time at all back on the clock?

There sureasheck can't still be O.6 seconds on the clock after he looks, no matter what. That look has to take some time- and if you don't know exactly how much time that look took, you can't put any "looking" time back on the clock.

"Look took"?

[Daryl H. Long]

Let's just talk reality here.

Clock management is important anytime during the game, not just the last few seconds. Yes, it becomes a lot more intense in the waning seconds of any period. The audible buzzer to end the period affects many aspects of the game of which scoring and timing rank high especially when a whistle also occurs near the end of a period.

In the last seconds of a period I officiate the game. I concentrate totally on the players in my primary coverage area (L, C, T) whether on-ball or off-ball.

I do not look at the clock but I listen for the horn.

Only AFTER I have sounded my whistle will I then glance up at the clock to ascertain time remaining if any.

Officiate.
Whistle.
Look at clock.

At this instance the time I SEE is the time I will put on the clock as the case book says lag time is already accounted for in that instance. If I can look up at clock AFTER sounding my whistle and see time remaining, that time I see is the time the comment says is reasonable for the timer to also stop the clock and still include lag time.

If the horn is sounding and 0:00 is on the clock when I see it then the period is over and my whistle is ignored. If the action on the court was such that it needed me to stay focused on the players and I am unable to see the clock and the horn sounds then the game is over. (unless my partner was awake during the pregame when I discussed have the non-calling official look at clock to help with time management in this very situation).

The only way any official can say with certainty that he blew his whistle with exactly .6 seconds is if he was looking at the clock before/while he was blowing his whistle. If he was looking at the clock how could he have seen any type of foul or violation or request for a time-out? He can't. He becomes derelict by not keeping his eyes on the players during the live ball.

Given this, while I do not intend to put words in JRs mouth, my take on his argument is that if the official says he blew his whistle KNOWING there were .6 seconds remaining then first we question why the officials was looking at the clock, and secondly, reality tells us no matter how fast the timer is at his duty to stop the clock it is not unreasonable for time TO HAVE EXPIRED and therefore the game is over. I can accept that.

My argument is that the time I see after blowing my whistle is not the time that my whistle blew. It is the time that we can reasonably expect to be showing given the timer stopped the clock as soon as he heard the whistle.

[blindzebra]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Just because he said .6 was on there at the whistle does not mean that an official was looking at the clock at that whistle. Any look after the whistle means whatever time was on the clock can be put back on. [/B]

And what was the exact time on the clock then after the official looked if he wasn't looking at the clock when he blew his whistle with 0.6 seconds left? Where can I find that information? Don't you need to have that exact information to put any time at all back on the clock?

There sureasheck can't still be O.6 seconds on the clock after he looks, no matter what. That look has to take some time- and if you don't know exactly how much time that look took, you can't put any "looking" time back on the clock.

"Look took"? [/B][/QUOTE]


It's getting late and I'm tired, so this is my final attempt to knock a hole in that brick wall known as JR.

In Nevada's play we know by description that .6 seconds was on the clock when the whistle occurred, correct?

We also know that by rule lag time is interpreted as the interval between whistle and look at the clock if the official is not looking at the clock at the time of the whistle, correct?

What we don't know is were the officials in this play looking at the clock during the whistle, if they looked after the whistle, heck they might not have looked at all and Nevada just pulled the .6 out of his rear end, correct?

Now, for the sake of argument, let's say they were not looking at the clock at the whistle, but glanced right after and .3 seconds were on the clock and then it ran off.

Game over or A's ball with .3 on the clock?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by blindzebra

And what was the exact time on the clock then after the official looked if he wasn't looking at the clock when he blew his whistle with 0.6 seconds left? Where can I find that information? Don't you need to have that exact information to put any time at all back on the clock?

There sureasheck can't still be O.6 seconds on the clock after he looks, no matter what. That look has to take some time- and if you don't know exactly how much time that look took, you can't put any "looking" time back on the clock.

"Look took"? [/B]

It's getting late and I'm tired, so this is my final attempt to knock a hole in that brick wall known as JR.

In Nevada's play we know by description that .6 seconds was on the clock when the whistle occurred, correct?

We also know that by rule lag time is interpreted as the interval between whistle and look at the clock if the official is not looking at the clock at the time of the whistle, correct?

What we don't know is were the officials in this play looking at the clock during the whistle, if they looked after the whistle, heck they might not have looked at all and Nevada just pulled the .6 out of his rear end, correct?

Now, for the sake of argument, let's say they were not looking at the clock at the whistle, but glanced right after and .3 seconds were on the clock and then it ran off.

Game over or A's ball with .3 on the clock? [/B][/QUOTE]A's ball with .3 on the clock.

But....if you don't have exact knowledge that .3 is the correct time when you looked, or what the exact time showing on the clock is after you look at it as is the case of the play we're discussing, you can't put any time back on the clock.

That's my point- and the rules. You can put .3 seconds back on the clock if you know that .3 seconds was on the clock when you looked at it. If you don't know what the actual time was on the clock though because you didn't see anything before the clock hit 00.0, then you can't put any time back on. The rules sez that. You're trying to justify your original argument by using circumstances that aren't relevant or pertinent.

[blindzebra]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

It's getting late and I'm tired, so this is my final attempt to knock a hole in that brick wall known as JR.

In Nevada's play we know by description that .6 seconds was on the clock when the whistle occurred, correct?

We also know that by rule lag time is interpreted as the interval between whistle and look at the clock if the official is not looking at the clock at the time of the whistle, correct?

What we don't know is were the officials in this play looking at the clock during the whistle, if they looked after the whistle, heck they might not have looked at all and Nevada just pulled the .6 out of his rear end, correct?

Now, for the sake of argument, let's say they were not looking at the clock at the whistle, but glanced right after and .3 seconds were on the clock and then it ran off.

Game over or A's ball with .3 on the clock? [/B]

A's ball with .3 on the clock.

But....if you don't have exact knowledge that .3 is the correct time when you looked, or what the exact time showing on the clock is after you look at it as is the case of the play we're discussing, you can't put any time back on the clock.

That's my point- and the rules. You can put .3 seconds back on the clock if you know that .3 seconds was on the clock when you looked at it. If you don't know what the actual time was on the clock though because you didn't see anything before the clock hit 00.0, then you can't put any time back on. The rules sez that. You're trying to justify your original argument by using circumstances that aren't relevant or pertinent. [/B][/QUOTE]

That is just it, in the play in question, we don't know one way or the other if the official had definite knowledge or not, because Nevada left that out.

I've been saying all along, that the play as described could be game over or X amount of time going back on the clock.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Daryl H. Long
Let's just talk reality here.

I do not look at the clock but I listen for the horn.

Only AFTER I have sounded my whistle will I then glance up at the clock to ascertain time remaining if any.

Officiate.
Whistle.
Look at clock.

At this instance the time I SEE is the time I will put on the clock as the case book says lag time is already accounted for in that instance. If I can look up at clock AFTER sounding my whistle and see time remaining, that time I see is the time the comment says is reasonable for the timer to also stop the clock and still include lag time.

If the horn is sounding and 0:00 is on the clock when I see it then the period is over and my whistle is ignored.

Yup, that's exactly what I've been saying. It's also exactly what BZ has been disagreeing with. If you see some time on the clock after looking, fine, put it back up. On this play however, there was never any mention of the official seeing any time on the clock.

And if you are looking at the clock, the timer is still allowed 1 second lag time, by rule.

Iow, looking or not looking at the clock when you blow the whistle, the end result of the play that we're discussing is the same in that there is no rule extant that will allow you to put any time back on the clock.

[Daryl H. Long]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

I believe the NF makes mistakes in their printed material and will call them on it when I see it. If you don't belive the NF makes mistakes then read 3.4.15 Situation A on page 3 of the 05-06 NF Case Book. The ruling is WRONG. The correct ruling is A1 is a PLAYER and he alone gets the T. his status as a player does not change just because it is halftime.

[/B]

The ruling is wrong and DFaryl H. Long is right?

You really ought to read the rule book more often, Daryl.

Rule 3-3-3- "A player becomes bench personnel after his/her substitute becomes a player or after notification of the coach following his/her disqualification".

His status changed from "player" to "bench personnel" as soon as the coach was notified of his disqualification. That's why the head coach get's an indirect "T"- he's responsible for the conduct of all "disqualified teammembers and all other bench personnel" as per the exact wording of rule 10-4. The penalty listed for violations of R10-4 says that the head coach gets an indirect "T" and the offender gets a direct "T".

That statement on p.3 of the case book is consistent with all of the pertinent rules in the rule book.

And whatintheheck does "halftime" have to do with anything? Halftime isn't mentioned in the statement on p.3 of the case book or anywhere in the actual case play. [/B][/QUOTE]

Thank you for such an eloquent dissertation on why the NF Ruling is correct on page 3 of case book for 3.14.15 situation B. I agree wholeheartedly. Perhaps it is YOU who needs to read more carefully.

I said 3.4.15 Sit A is incorrect.
I said 3.4.15 Sit A is incorrect.
I said 3.4.15 Sit A is incorrect.

On second thought I will type it here for you.

3.4.15 Situation A: After the horn sound to end the first half, A1 removes his/her jersey near the team bench: Ruling: a technical foul is charged to A1 and an indirect technical foul is charged to the head coach; A1 is considered bench personnel in this situation. (10-3-7)

The NF ruling is WRONG. Even though it is halftime A1 is still a PLAYER. Why? Because his status remains as a player until the criteria you mention above per 3-3-3 are met. He has not been substituted for nor has he been disqualified.

The correct ruling is: A technical foul is charged to A1 only. Since this foul occured after the expiration of playing time for the second quarter, the third quarter will be started with 2 free throws by any player of team B and then Team B will be given the ball out of bounds for a throw in at the division line. Since this is not an AP throw in the arrow will not be changed. (10-3-7h)

BTW: For 3.4.15 Sit B the citation at the end only applies to part (a) of the Sit. The NF has omitted the proper rule citation for part (b)which is 10-4-1h.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by blindzebra

A's ball with .3 on the clock.

But....if you don't have exact knowledge that .3 is the correct time when you looked, or what the exact time showing on the clock is after you look at it as is the case of the play we're discussing, you can't put any time back on the clock.

That's my point- and the rules. You can put .3 seconds back on the clock if you know that .3 seconds was on the clock when you looked at it. If you don't know what the actual time was on the clock though because you didn't see anything before the clock hit 00.0, then you can't put any time back on. The rules sez that. You're trying to justify your original argument by using circumstances that aren't relevant or pertinent. [/B]

That is just it, in the play in question, we don't know one way or the other if the official had definite knowledge or not, because Nevada left that out.

I've been saying all along, that the play as described could be game over or X amount of time going back on the clock. [/B][/QUOTE]Unbelievable.

Complete waste of time.

[Daryl H. Long]

BlindZebra,

"Now we see the violence inherent in the system" It is probably a futile effort to try to knock a hole in that brick wall called JR.

I am just as much a brick wall as he is and personally I am thankful that JR always uses rules citations to back up any comment he makes on this forum. So do I. So does NevadaRef, and Dan_Ref, and many others too numerous to name.

There are very few areas in which JR or NevadaRef and I disagree on. When we do we trade barbs, insults, etc but the bottom line is I respect them for their dedication to studying the rules, and their desire to teach and help all referees who may read, not just those who post on this forum.

[Daryl H. Long]

That is just it, in the play in question, we don't know one way or the other if the official had definite knowledge or not, because Nevada left that out.

I've been saying all along, that the play as described could be game over or X amount of time going back on the clock. [/B][/QUOTE]Unbelievable.

Complete waste of time. [/B][/QUOTE]

JR

I agree totally. Why would BlindZebra feel the need argue for hours (right or wrong) to the point of wanting to knock a hole in your brick wall because he thought your answer was wrong, and then make a final post of you could do it either way? Whether we agree or not at the least we should have enough conviction to stick with one answer. Could have saved a lot of writing and reading time if we accept two totally opposite ways to handle one situation and both are correct.

[ace]

I dont think the Fed has taken into consideration that 70% of the schools we call in show the tenths of a second on the clock. i think once they recognize chucks propsoal can be written in.


personally I blow the whistle. and put back what I saw...

Our own esteemed Brad Batt did this a few weekends ago in a tournament. Brad, care to offer any input?

[Nevadaref]

Originally posted by Daryl H. Long
I believe the NF makes mistakes in their printed material and will call them on it when I see it. If you don't belive the NF makes mistakes then read 3.4.15 Situation A on page 3 of the 05-06 NF Case Book. The ruling is WRONG. The correct ruling is A1 is a PLAYER and he alone gets the T. his status as a player does not change just because it is halftime.

Daryl,
Please take a look at 10.4.1SitB. It seems that the NFHS says that his status does change during halftime.
There is a sentence in that ruling which reads, "During intermission all team members are bench personnel and are penalized accordingly." To me that means that between quarters, including the halftime interval, the head coach should be assessed an indirect technical foul when any of his team members receive a technical foul.

Now you are free to argue that the ruling in this case book play is also incorrect and for the sake of consistency, I hope that you do.

I too do not feel that every case book ruling is right. Those who write them make mistakes and misinterpret rules that have been around since long before they were on the NFHS committee. Personally, I have argued in another recent thread on this forum that the ruling in 10.3.3SitB is wrong. That's my crusade.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Daryl H. Long

The ruling is wrong and DFaryl H. Long is right?

You really ought to read the rule book more often, Daryl.

And whatintheheck does "halftime" have to do with anything? Halftime isn't mentioned in the statement on p.3 of the case book or anywhere in the actual case play. [/B]

Thank you for such an eloquent dissertation on why the NF Ruling is correct on page 3 of case book for 3.14.15 situation B. I agree wholeheartedly. Perhaps it is YOU who needs to read more carefully.

I said 3.4.15 Sit A is incorrect.
I said 3.4.15 Sit A is incorrect.
I said 3.4.15 Sit A is incorrect.

On second thought I will type it here for you.

[/B][/QUOTE]Oh my. I see the problem now. I also admit that I was wrong, withdraw my remarks above and hang my head in abject shame.

Now, having said that, Houston we have a problem. I've never noticed this before; the FED makes COMMENTS every year on page 3 about various case book plays. Personally I usually skim over those maybe once and then forget about them. Well. I'm gonna have to stop doing that. None of the case book plays showing on page 3 actually show up later on in the case book. Not a one of 'em. If you study the body of the case book , you won't find them. The only place that you'll find them is on page 3. I was citing 3.4.15 back to you- which is the only 3.4.15 that is actually inside the case book.

Thank you for bringing that to my attention, Daryl.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Daryl H. Long
[/B]

3.4.15 Situation A: After the horn sound to end the first half, A1 removes his/her jersey near the team bench: Ruling: a technical foul is charged to A1 and an indirect technical foul is charged to the head coach; A1 is considered bench personnel in this situation. (10-3-7)

The NF ruling is WRONG. Even though it is halftime A1 is still a PLAYER. Why? Because his status remains as a player until the criteria you mention above per 3-3-3 are met. He has not been substituted for nor has he been disqualified.

[/B][/QUOTE]Now that I've gone through the "sackcloth and ashes" routine and admitted that I'm stoopid, lemme try to answer this one:

Whoa. Don't have to. Nevada already has answered it. Case book play 10.4.1SitB sez "During intermission all team members are bench personnel".

Also, as per R5-6-4, all technicals that occur after the ball becomes dead to end a period aren't considered as part of that period. Iow, A1 wouldn't meet the requirements of being a "player" under R4-34-1, but would meet the requirements of R4-34-2.