Situation this past weekend - Do over
 

Team A down 2 points side out at about the free throw line, across from the table. Time on clock is 1.4 seconds

A1 throws an errant inbounds pass that is heading for the table. B1 should have let it go, but instead tries to corral the pass in on the sideline. She puts her left hand on the table to keep her balance while she grabs the ball with her right hand.

The timekeeper does not start the clock because he's thinking that she is OOB. In retrospect he said he should've started the clock, because there is no whistle from the refs. I guess they didn't see the hand on the table since this was a distance from where they were set up to watch the last play.

The problem is, as B1 is steadying herself for what had to be at least a second. A2 steals the ball at half court, throws a pass to A3 who shoots a bank shot from about 25 feet, it goes in. The timekeeper starts the clock when A2 steals the ball. The buzzer sounds as the shot is in flight.

After much debate, the refs initially signal the basket good Team A wins by 1. However, after another discussion with the coaches and timekeeper, they decide to put 1.4 back on the clock and play it again.

From following discussions on this board, I don't think I've ever heard of a do-over per the rulebook on here. If I follow the discussions on here closely enough, I'd have to think either the basket counts or it doesn't count based on whether the refs had definite knowledge of the correct time on the clock. Correct?

I know at higher levels they have TV monitors to look at for something like this. However at youth levels, what is correct ruling? If I'm correct about the definite knowledge part, what would constitute definite knowledge? Just common sense knowing that she had to have held the ball for a second combined with the timekeeper acknowledging that he didn't start the clock during that time. Would that be good enough? Any thoughts?

High School rules, if it matters.

First off, if the player is OOB when she touched it, it should be a violation. So give it to the other team with 1.4.


But if the officials missed that. Then you have to make a decision, do you have definite knowledge that 1.4 seconds passed before the ball was released on the shot. If so wave it off, if not then count the basket, game over.

This is why clock management / awareness is very important at the end of a close game. If you never signaled an OOB call on the table pass, then the timekeeper should have started the clock. If he saw it, once A stole the ball it should have started. If there is no true way of knowing how much time was elasped, then the basket should count.

You should have killed the play while it was in motion when you noticed the clock stopped or it was taking more than two seconds. But if both coaches agree then play it over. They must be really nice coaches though. Here in NJ that would never happen.

Just my $0.02

Appreciate the responses.

But as a clarification Pat, I was a fan in the stands on this one. Ocasionally I'm the timekeeper/scorekeeper, but another parent was doing it this time.

I've only refed a couple of scrimmage games. And I'll tell you, it's a lot harder than it looks. :) I think all parents who yell and scream at games should have to ref some scrimmages and see how good they are. Of course the players in those scrimmages wouldn't want that.:D

Another clarification this was a 13U summer tournament. Not high stakes, I think almost everyone there was looking to get better as their primary goal. Although no one ever complains that they are winning too many games.

Snake is correct. The clock should NOT have started. A's ball for a throw-in in front of the table.

After that didn't happen, things are so screwed up, it doesn't matter much what you do.

The end result was fine. They just should have had the throw-in in front of the table.

Hmmmm...let's discuss this.

The way I read the play B1 was OOB as she caught the throw-in but neither official saw this. So I also agree with Snake - the officials need to agree if the shot counts or if it's waved off. Assuming time was chopped in (big assumption here maybe) the clock operator was wrong to not start the clock.

Griz, you need to post more often.
Here is what I have:
1.4 seconds on the clock, A down 2, inbounding the ball opposite the table.
In-bounds pass toward the table, B1 touches the table and the ball, but official does not see the table touch. A2 steals the ball and pases to A3 who throws it in from 25 ft.

The clock was not started until B2 (? Probably A2) steals the ball. Then you say B wins by one. (Don't you mean A wins by one).

Sounds like typical youth basketball - Score table staffed by inexperianced people, officials who are inexperienced hopefully trying to improve.

From following discussions on this board, I don't think I've ever heard of a do-over per the rulebook on here. If I follow the discussions on here closely enough, I'd have to think either the basket counts or it doesn't count based on whether the refs had definite knowledge of the correct time on the clock. Correct?

sounds correct to me, but we officials can't always agree on this one.

Yes I meant A wins by one, that was the original call by the ref (sorry about the confusion). And yes A2 makes the steal. (It's kind of hard to keep all this straight, again I'm sorry.) I have edited my original post with these corrections in order to not confuse future readers of this thread.

However they changed it to a do-over. On the do-over Team B keeps their original 2 pt lead and that is the final. On the do-over Team A doesn't get a shot off.

What would constitute definite knowledge for you guys?

Do you count in your head?

Watch to make sure the clock starts?

Both or something else.

If you didn't look at the clock to make sure it started, can you use your common sense to know that 2 seconds had to elapse or not?

Regarding Dan's assumption. I don't know for sure that time was chopped in, my eyes were following the basketball across the court and the inbounds wasn't touched until it was 30 feet from the official. But I think it is a safe assumption that the ref either chopped time in or definitely meant to chop time in because they never had a whistle the whole time and one official (after briefly discussing things with the other official) originally signaled a successful three point basket. (And there really was no controversy that she had released the ball before the buzzer - there was much controversy over the fact that the clock wasn't started until after Team A regained control of the ball.)

And to Team A's credit, while they were jumping up and down thinking they might have won the game. The coach really didn't complain about the replay of the final 1.4 seconds or the fact that his team ultimately lost the game. He just smiled and shook Coach B's hand - he knew time should have elapsed and like I said the stakes weren't high for this one.

Agree, it's a timer's error- not an official's error. It's no different than if the officials missed a travel by B1 when she caught the ball. You can't go back and retroactively make that call. I don't think that there's anything in the book that will let you give team A the ball at the scorer's table. Common sense might say "yes" but the rules don't.

Btw, whether the officials chopped time in or not ain't really that relevant. The timer is authorized to start the clock even if the officials don't chop it in. If the official hadda seen the violation and signalled continued time-out, then the clock shoulda never started. This one is just a timer's error.

The only way that you can correct anything that happened here is by having <b>definite</b> information about the time involved.

Of course in a kid's game, you might bend the rules.

You can count in your head, you can use your count from a 10 second count. If there's one second on the clock and the player dribbles around for a few seconds, even though you may not know the exact time you know that the player was dribbling for more than 1 second so you have definite knowledge. Those are just some examples.


Now in situations towards the end of the game it is important we pay extra attention to the clock. I would make sure that the clock started, if not, best case scenario (imo) is to blow the whistle and wake up the clock operator. Sometimes this just isn't possible, in other situations I would start a count. It gets really sticky when you have tenths of a second on the clock and a quick shot, you are really in a jam in these situations.

This is why we get paid the big bucks...

To add an additional $0.02, I had a CYO game last year. Younger girls, <u> running clock</u>. There was 8 seconds left in the game, A was up by 1, B's ball, 8,7, ball OOB (clock is suppose to keep running) 6, 5, 5, 5, as B thows in at FTL extended across the court. Inbounds the ball, glance at the clock 5, 5, 5, I yell start the clock...

The parent doesn't, I had the B/c count up to 3.. Blew it dead. The girl was not moving and no apparent play was occouring.... Reset the clock to 2 sec and had another inbounds... His answer to me was that I wasnt giving his daughter a chance to move the ball upcourt.. and "this is just a kids game, let them play."... Needless to say we got a new clock operator and A won.

Sometimes you will get clueless clock operators and table personell. You do with the best you can.

Pat

I don't disagree. I was simply pointing out that the clock never should have started because the throw-in was not touched inbounds.

Since the officials screwed this up, they pretty much screwed up everything else that occurred afterwards.

As it was, they ended up doing what they would have done if they had make the correct call to begin with: they gave the ball to A for a throw-in with 1.4 on the clock. They just had the wrong spot.

The whole thing is a cluster**** from the get-go.

I also believe that this is correct for NFHS rules because if we follow all of the wording that was used in the LGP "clarifications," I have to believe that by "on the court" the NFHS means inbounds.

5-9-4 . . . If play is resumed by a throw-in, the clock shall be started when the ball touches, or is touched by, a player on the court after it is released by the thrower.


4-23 GUARDING
...
ART. 2 . . . To obtain an initial legal guarding position:
a. The guard must have both feet touching the playing court.
b. The front of the guard's torso must be facing the opponent.
ART. 3 . . . After the initial legal guarding position is obtained:
a. The guard may have one or both feet on the playing court or be airborne, provided he/she has inbound status.


Of course, I am in the camp that says NEVER allow do-overs in NFHS basketball.

Yes, on the court means the ball must be touched inbounds.

The exact order of events is unclear: Was B1 already touching the table when she touched the ball? If so, this would be a throw-in violation on A and the ball goes to B.

SECTION 2 THROW-IN PROVISIONS
A player shall not violate the following provisions governing the throw-in.
The thrower shall not:
ART. 2 . . . Fail to pass the ball directly into the court from out-of-bound so it touches or is touched by another player (inbounds or out of bounds) on the court before going out of bounds untouched.

If not, then the ball goes to A at the table.

### Possible retraction of above statement ###

Actually, now that I re-read the rule, I'm confused by the "inbounds our out of bounds" part. It also seems to wreak havoc with the definition of "on the court" that Nevada was quoting. Is this really saying that the conditions of the throw-in are met by touching a player who is out of bounds? And does it really equate being "inbounds or out of bounds" with being "on the court"? Or am I reading it incorrectly?

And now that rampant self-doubt is running amok, I'm going to rephrase my earlier statement as a question: If B1 was OOB by virtue of touching the table when she touched the ball, would that not be the same as A1's inbound pass going OOB untouched? Or is it, instead, an OOB violation on B1?

This is what I don't know. I was sitting very near where the ball was for the inbounds pass - a good distance from the table. From where I was I didn't see B1 with her hand on the table. I originally thought that the timekeeper just completely blew it for no reason at all. However after talking to him after the game, while he still made a mistake, the mistake was somewhat understandable since he was less than a foot away from an obvious violation (if it was seen by the ref).

But I don't know if she touched the ball, then the table. Or the other way around. Based on the fact that he never started the clock, even for a split second, I'd have to think that she touched the table first or nearly simultaneously. But I don't know the answer for sure.

If the ball goes OOB untouched, then it's a vioation of the rule you quoted -- the throw in is at the spot of the original throw in.

If the ball is touched by a player, even if the player is OOB, then it's an OOB violation on the play, not a throw-in violation.

Okay, that makes more sense.

You have the part in blue above backwards, but you already realized that. Bob J gave you the correct ruling.
Yet you raise a great point about the inconsistent use of the term "on the court" in the Rulesbook. In the definition of guarding 4-23 the words "on the court" are used to specify that a player must be inbounds. These words were also used in this same manner in the "clarifications" that were issued by NFHS committee prior to their inclusion in the Rulesbook. Just to be accurate, I'll point out that I only quoted the definition of guarding and argued by analogy the meaning of the words "on the court." We KNOW what they mean in 4-23 because the NFHS committee has said so. We DON't know what they mean in 5-9-4 or 9-2-2. In fact, there is a clear indication that "on the court" means BOTH inbounds AND out of bounds in 9-2-2. The NFHS needs to fix this. They really need to give us a definition of the playing court and what it means to be "on the court." In the past we have argued that according to Rule 1 the playing court is what is inside the sidelines and endlines. If that is true, then the committee is misusing the phrase in 9-2-2 and should change it.

Nice catch BITS. :)

A player on the court can be inbounds or out-of-bounds and still be on the court. The rule you quote above is unambiguous. Nevada's relating it to the guarding rule is not relevant...confusing but not relavant. (This is what happens when someone decides to clarify a rule by redefining a term that was previously used consistently without adjusting other uses of that term).


The violation is NOT a throwin violation for a player to touch the throwin pass while OOB. It is a violation on the player who touches the ball.

Consider the ramifications if this were not the case: A1 throws the ball. A2 about to receive the pass. B2 gets a hand on the ball but is OOB before it gets to A2. Violation for touching a live ball while OOB. If there were to be a throwin violation on A1, B would get the ball. This, of course, makes absolutely no sense.

There is a "minor" difference in the terms. The LGP rule uses "playing court" as opposed to just "court".

I'm not sure that this is a true statement for NFHS rules. I'm not saying that it is untrue either. I just don't know.

a. Yes 9-2-2 is very clear and makes a good case for your first sentence being true.
b. My looking at 4-23 is more important than you might think though. See the end of this post.
c. I agree with you that the NFHS messed up the term in its attempt to clarify the LGP rule. "On the court" and "on the playing court" are both now unclear. Does the former include both inbounds AND out of bounds areas used by the players to play the game while the latter means only the inbounds area? Possible, but again I can't say for sure. I wish I could, but I am not an authoritative source.


No problem here. Due to the clarity of the throw-in provisions we agree on who is committing the violation on this play. What we don't know for sure is whether or not the clock should be started on the touch by the violating player.

Ok, so are you contending that these terms mean what I wrote in part c above?
If so, then would you say that the clock should be started by the timer on the touch and then quickly stopped again when (and if) the official calls the violation? Why? Because the timing rule that is relevant here uses the words "on the court" not "playing court."

5-9-4 . . . If play is resumed by a throw-in, the clock shall be started when the ball touches, or is touched by, a player on the court after it is released by the thrower.

I am now rethinking my earlier agreement with Tony that the clock should not have started on this play. I'm now thinking that a quick start and stop might be the correct procedure.

Regarding the clock, I think the correct answer is both. The clock may or may not start. The timer should only be starting the clock when indicated by the official...not on his own....unless the official clearly forgets. If the official indicates that time should start, it should...and it should only stop on the whistle. This can easily occur if the catch occurs on a line not covered by the official covering the throwin (who can't see if the player is on the line or not). If both parts are covered by the same official, he should not chop time in since there is a violation that makes the ball dead at the very instant that it would have started and that official has all the element needed to make the call. In a perfect world, the clock would never start in either case. So, there will alway be some "delays" between infractions and the whistle. I think there is no mistake in either case.

The terminology partially boils down to the fact that those on the rules committee at the time 4-23 changed with a "clarification" really change the rule without calling it such. For decades, the game was played with defenders taking a position with a foot on the line (and no one I know ever considered whether the foot was touching the line or not when deciding to call a block or charge). Accepting 4-23 for what was intended, I do not think they were trying to define the term of "the court". I think they were using in a descriptive sense and the exact meaning was intending to come from the entire context and not from those specific words.
.