Case book submissions?

[ODJ]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

Should the clock start on a kicked ball during a throw-in?

Should not because it was not legally touched inbounds.

[ODJ]

Originally Posted by ChuckElias

PLAY: (a) A1 or (b) B1 is preparing to shoot the second of two FTs. While the shooter is holding the ball, Coach A tells the official, "I want a TO if s/he makes it." The FT is successful. Without any additional request from the coach, the official grants a TO to Team A. Is the official correct?
(a) Yes. His team is on possession of the ball. (b) No.

PLAY: A1 is closely guarded by B1. A2 is momentarily positioned between A1 and B1, as A1 goes around A2's screen. Official continues the 5-second count. Is the official correct?
Yes.

PLAY: A1 is closely guarded by B1. A2 steps between A1 and B1 and holds a position between them. Official continues the 5-second count. Is the official correct?
If the official judges B1 to be within 6 ft. of A1, yes.

PLAY: Team A scores a successful field goal. While B1 is holding the ball for the ensuing throw-in, A2 and B2 are charged with a double foul. Official puts the ball in play at the point of interruption and allows B1 to make the throw-in from anywhere along the endline. Is the official correct?
No. The foul supercedes Team A's right to run.

PLAY: A1 dives to the floor and secures control of the ball. A1's momentum causes him/her to roll over while sliding on the floor. Official rules this a traveling violation. Is the official correct?
Bob answered this one.

PLAY: The clock is stopped with 50.3 seconds showing. Team A is awarded a designated spot throw-in. A1 releases the throw-in and (a) the ball is immediately kicked by B1 or (b) the ball is first touched by A2 who is standing out of bounds. After the violation, the clock shows 49.6 seconds. The official rules the clock should not have started and directs the timer to reset the game clock to 50.3 seconds. Is the official correct?
No and No. The ball should be touched legally inbounds for the clock to start.

PLAY: Team A is awarded a throw-in on the endline under its own basket. While A1 is holding the ball for the throw-in, A2 falls to his/her hands and knees and starts barking like a dog. As Team B's players are distracted by A2, A1 passes to A3 for an uncontested lay-up. Official rules this a legal play. Is the official correct?
Yes. This to me doesn't cross the line of USC.

Comments? Additions?

Hope this helps.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by ODJ

Hope this helps.

WTF?

Nope, it doesn't help at all. Notwithstanding the fact that some of your answers are completely different (and wrong) than the answers provided by the NFHS, all that you are doing is completely confusing things.

In Chuck Elias' post #68 made on May 11, 2008, , the red-highlighted answers at the bottom of each play is the approved FED ruling that was received to those questions. In the 7 plays that you posted, you have answered #1, #4 and #7 completely wrong from the answers received back from the NFHS. That really ain't much help.

You also didn't happen to notice by any chance that you just responded to a post made in July of 2006?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by ODJ

Hope this helps.

It would have been more helpful if you hadn't ignored this part of Chuck's post:

Originally Posted by squirrel man

Ok, I asked for everybody's help in assembling these questions, and I finally got a reply. I guess that I sent them too late to discuss at last year's meeting. In any case, these are the questions that we submitted. The blue text is my explanation of exactly what we were trying to clarify, and the red text is Mary Struckoff's ruling, as related by my friend on the committee.

Unless you are on the committee, of course.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

Should the clock start on a kicked ball during a throw-in?

Originally Posted by ODJ

Should not because it was not legally touched inbounds.

What's the rule say?

Originally Posted by Rule 5-9-4

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

The rule is vague with room for interpretation. Personally, if the clock does start, I don't think you can correct it as a timing error.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Iirc, I was right on 5 out of the 7 that she answered. We differed on the "barking dog" which I thought was silly but OK, and the fumble by an airborne shooter which I though was traveling(still do ).

Of course, after seeing some of her other rulings....as in the backcourt one from last year.....

My percentage was MUCH higher!

But I'm still with you on that backcourt ruling.

[jdw3018]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

The rule is vague with room for interpretation. Personally, if the clock does start, I don't think you can correct it as a timing error.

Why couldn't you? If you're the chopping official, and you never chopped because the violation happened simultaneous with the touching, then you have knowledge that no time should have elapsed. If you know a second came off the clock, I don't see why you couldn't correct it.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by jdw3018

Why couldn't you? If you're the chopping official, and you never chopped because the violation happened simultaneous with the touching, then you have knowledge that no time should have elapsed. If you know a second came off the clock, I don't see why you couldn't correct it.

Yep, since the NFHS added the word "legally" last year the clock should NOT start per rule, and that makes this a timer's error which can be corrected with proper knowledge.

[Adam]

I was stressing the "touches" part before the or is legally touched. I think if you'll just over analyze it like I did, you'll see I might be right.

[lukealex]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

My percentage was MUCH higher!

But I'm still with you on that backcourt ruling.

Ok I'll bite, do you happen to know the link to this particular backcourt play in question?

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by lukealex

Ok I'll bite, do you happen to know the link to this particular backcourt play in question?

2007-08 Basketball Rules Interpretations

SITUATION 10: A1, in the team's frontcourt, passes to A2, also in the team's frontcourt. B1 deflects the ball toward Team A's backcourt. The ball bounces only in Team A's frontcourt before crossing the division line. While the ball is still in the air over Team A's backcourt, but never having touched in Team A's backcourt, A2 gains possession of the ball while standing in Team A's backcourt. RULING: Backcourt violation on Team A. Team A was still in team control and caused the ball to have backcourt status. Had A2 permitted the ball to bounce in the backcourt after having been deflected by B1, there would have been no backcourt violation. (4-4-1; 4-4-3; 9-9-1)

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

2007-08 Basketball Rules Interpretations

SITUATION 10: A1, in the team's frontcourt, passes to A2, also in the team's frontcourt. B1 deflects the ball toward Team A's backcourt. The ball bounces only in Team A's frontcourt before crossing the division line. While the ball is still in the air over Team A's backcourt, but never having touched in Team A's backcourt, A2 gains possession of the ball while standing in Team A's backcourt. RULING: Backcourt violation on Team A. Team A was still in team control and caused the ball to have backcourt status. Had A2 permitted the ball to bounce in the backcourt after having been deflected by B1, there would have been no backcourt violation. (4-4-1; 4-4-3; 9-9-1)

Yup, it cites R9-9-1 to back it up, and 9-9-1 contradicts this ruling.

Silly monkey.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

It would have been more helpful if you hadn't ignored this part of Chuck's post:
Quote: