this play was observed in the ORCC tournament

Play, Team A scores a basket to close the gap to, Team B (80) and Team A (78) with 2.1 seconds left on the game clock.

Team B, B -1 runs the endline after the scored basket while there is pressure from Team A, B - 1 throws an entry pass to his team mate B - 2 who goes air borne, catches the ball gains control and immediately goes to the floor.

Lead official blow whistle and calls a travel!

The game clock shows 0.1 of a second left!

Team is granted the ball via the violation, A - 1 designated spot throws the ball into the playing court to A -2 who is cutting down the lane opposite side, as the ball reaches the air borne A -2 his is bumped just as the buzzer sounds.

How would you rule on the play as an official on the court, please do not give me a rule book answers.

You do not have the aide of a monitor!

Did it take a full (2) second for the play to complete?

Would you put time on the clock or would you leave it as it is?

If you put time back on the clock, how much?

If you did not, then how would you rule on the entry pass and contact against A -2?

What if anything was missed?

You got it.

Without being there and seeing the play develop, there is no way anyone can give you any answers other than what is stated in the rule book.

Okay give a rule book answer and then comment on how you would have actually handled it!

It seems as though travel was th incorrect call. However, yo can't go back and nullify that call.

The official has to rule what happened first, first touching of the ball inbounds, or a foul.

Foul happened first: admin the foul with 0.1s on the clock. Play continues with either an A throw-in nearest the foul (non-bonus situation) or with a bonus situation if in the bonus.

Inbounds touching first: game over unless it was deemed that the foul was during the period of time where A2 was touching the ball and his touching was the first after the throw-in.

My $0.02

Why did Team B inbound the ball? :confused:

good question Chuck - I assumed this sitch was a high school contest, so I was wondering why Team B would attempt to inbound the ball

In the association I work the clock stops after made baskets in the last minute of the game or OT period. Therefore it would require an inbound pass to start the clock again.

Ok, but then why did it take 2 whole seconds for the kid to catch the ball and hit the floor?

There in is the delema I am in. Should time have been put back on the clock? Unless the Official delayed the Whistle on the violation. ( Only way I can see the time ticking off)

I'm assuming the throw in took place because the clock stopped at 2.1 after a made basket and that the ORCC is some kind of a community college tournament that plays by college rules. Otherwise, you're right Chuck that a throw in would make no sense.

I don't see any error, in the description, for making a travel call. Put time on the clock? Well, I guess you'd have to see the whole thing take place. If the player went up, touched the ball, then landed, then went down, then the whistle blew, then the timer had a normal lag time to stop the clock, I can certainly see that taking 2 seconds. I don't think I put any time on the clock here.

As for the foul-at-the-buzzer situation, I think I largely agree with what JugglingReferee said: basically, which happened first. Just remember that if the offensive player catches that ball, you cannot have a "shooting foul." FTs only if bonus.

The ORCC is a small-college league in Ohio, iirc, at about the D3 level. I would imagine that they use NCAA rules.

Probably not. I think jumpig 4' and returning takes about .5 seconds (my physics is too rusty to check exactly).



I'd probably let 1 second go off. But, if I wasn't certain of the time, I'd have to go by the timer.

I think it's unlikely that A1 made the full round trip 4' up & back down with the ball, that in itself would be a travel. ;) Yeah, I think unless there was some unusual circumstance I wouldn't want the clock to stay at .1 seconds in this play.

A second sounds good.

1. You appear to be suggesting that the clock started 'too early'. One would have to see the play. I believe that, if the Ref has definite knowledge ("I was counting"), he may correct an obvious timing error in this situation.

2. The 'entry pass contact' issue was recently discussed at length in another thread on this forum. Apparently, under NCAA rules, there cannot be a common foul with 3 tenths of a second or less, but under FED rules - it could be a common foul, and, were the foulee's team in the bonus, s/he would shoot.

[Edited by assignmentmaker on Mar 2nd, 2006 at 11:54 AM]

Care to expand on this?

Apparently, under NCAA rules, there cannot be a common foul with 3 tenths of a second or less, ...

I would like to see this one in writing; can you quote that rule or ART or guidline to us Please?

Are you sure that you are not talking about a shooting foul in this situation?

That would make sence since you can not have a try with .2 seconds or less on the clock there for any foul committed would be a common foul that would put the shooter at the line for the bonus if in effect but there would be not shots if not in the bonus.

Here's the NCAA A/R. It's not quite what was claimed:

A.R. 45. With two 10ths of a second remaining in a period on the game clock, Team A is
awarded a throw-in at the division line. A1 passes the ball to A2 who (a) catches the ball
with both hands while in the air and throws the ball into his or her basket or (b) does not
catch the ball but taps it into the basket. In both (a) and (b), the ball is in the air on the
way to the basket when the game-ending horn sounds. RULING: In (a), when the game
clock displays three 10ths of a second or less and play is to be resumed by a throw-in or
a free throw, a player may not gain possession of the ball and try for goal. When this situation
occurs, the official shall blow his/her whistle and the period is over, unless a flagrant
personal foul or intentional personal foul was committed on the play. Whether the
try for goal was successfully attempted before the expiration of time is inconsequential.
In (b), when the player does not possess (catch) the ball but taps it into the basket before
the period-ending horn sounds, the official shall use replay equipment, videotape or television
monitoring, when available and located at courtside, to ascertain whether the tap
(try) that will determine the outcome of the game was released before the sounding of
the period-ending horn. When, in using the monitor, the official determines that the successful
try was a catch (the player possessed the ball), the official shall cancel the goal
since it was erroneously counted and can be corrected per Rule 2-11.1.c.

So.....if you're fouled during a "tap" with 0.3 seconds or less on the clock, is it no foul too? Or a 2-shot foul in the act of shooting? That A.R. isn't clear on that.

That AR doesn't cover it directly.
but it does say that you can not have a try with .3 seconds on the clock or less - which means you could not have a shooting foul.
only a bonus situation 1 +1 or 2 shots after 9.
I think that is where the misunderstanding occurs.
By rule at this point on the clock you can only have a common foul, since there can not be a try for goal!

That's completely irrelevant to my question. The A.R. doesn't cover a "tap" situation at all as far as I can see. That A.R. says that you can't have "possession <b>and</b> a try". Iow, if you grab the ball, then you can't have a try. And if there's no "try", then you can't have a foul during that try. That's logical, I guess. However, that's a completely different situation than "tapping" a ball. If you tap the ball with less than 0.3 seconds on the clock and it's in the air before the red light goes on, then that is a "try" also and that tap(try) would count in that case. There's different types of tries....and a "tap" type try is different from a try with possession.

And....if a player is fouled in the act of tapping, and that tap subsequently goes in and is counted, I can't see how the rules could also say that you can't have a foul in the act of tapping if there's 0.3 seconds or less on the clock.

The rule does not say that, it only says you can't catch and shoot at .3 seconds or less.

A tap can occur at this point. A tap is a try. A foul on the tap is the same as a foul on a try. So with .3 seconds or less you can have a shooting foul on a tap, but not on a catch & shoot.

Thank you for the clarification. That was my take too.

So.....to sum up, on that particular throw-in being discussed, with 0.3 seconds or less on the clock, you could have (1)a common foul if it occurred during the throw-in but before the tap (2) A shooting foul if the foul occurred on the tap and before the light came on, or (3) an intentional or flagrant personal foul could also be committed on the tapper if either happened before the light came on. And NFHS rules would be the same for these situations.

<i>Correctamundo?</i>

I think we agree, but what do I know?

I aint one of them daytime TV judges.

I don't even like jello pudding.

Slick,

NFHS - I guess most people think there is an obvious timing mistake on this play but i don't think that is necessarily so. The amount of time involved is not just the catch and fall to the floor. There is recognition time for the ref and lag time for the clock operator. A good clock operator would start the clock on the airborn catch and would wait on an official's signal on the fall to the floor. I would imagine that it takes the calling official a little time to "recognize" a travel after the kid hits the floor and put air in the whistle. Unless one of the three officials had a count going after this WHISTLE (for the travel) or noticed the time after this WHISTLE, then I would not touch the clock.

1) I think we agree, but what do I know?

2) I aint one of them daytime TV judges.

3) I don't even like jello pudding.
[/B][/QUOTE]1) Very little.

2) Me neither.

3) Me nor.

1) Very little.

[/B][/QUOTE]

That's why I agree with you.

http://ednet.rvc.cc.il.us/~jlbecker/...Cat.finger.jpg

Without seeing it, how would I know how much time it took?

Without seeing it, how would I know if traveling is the wrong call?

Seems like you are fishing for an answer that an objective person can't give based on lack of information.

Leaving aside for the moment that matter of a tap, and looking at the NCAA ruling . . .

With three tenths or less on the clock, A2 catches A1's inbounds pass and is fouled (a) while attempting a shot, and (b) while not attempting a shot.

For (a), A.R.45 says, "a player may not gain possession of the ball and try for goal . . . the official shall blow his/her whistle and the period is over, unless a flagrant personal foul or intentional personal foul was committed on the play." Thus, in NCAA rules, no foul.

But, if, as in (b), no shot is attempted, it seems to me the AR doesn't address the issue, and a non-shooting common foul could be assessed.

Thus we have the faintly paradoxical result that, if A2 tries to score via shooting, s/he can't, but, if s/he doesn't try to score, s/he could go to the line.

I believe there is no corresponding FED Casebook ruling, so A2 could be fouled in both aboves delineated cases. In case (a), an official would be contending that A2 couldn't have been shooting, no matter what the player thought.

Where does it say that? :confused:

Try reading a few of the posts above again. That A.R. says that you can't call an act-of-shooting foul on a try that includes possession or player control. It doesn't say that that you can't call an act-of-shooting foul on a tap. You can call a 2-shot foul on a tap. Both are methods of "trying to score via shooting". That's what we've been discussing.

If A1 catches the ball and can't (by rule) shoot, there are no "normal offensive maneuvers" to be prevented, and, thus, no common foul.

If the foul is before the catch / tap it could be a common foul.

If the foul is during the tap (or on the airborne tapper), it could (would) be a shooting foul.

Sounds familiar.

"If A1 catches the ball and can't (by rule) shoot, there are no "normal offensive maneuvers" to be prevented, and, thus, no common foul."

There are no 'normal offensive maneuvers' in the sense that not trying to score has no value? Sounds sensible to me. I was being kind of literal about it . . .