Guidance?

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Yup, I'll go along with that. If subs were beckoned by the trail and you had players running all over the floor, then I agree that a re-set is probably the best course.

Which is what I understood the play to be. Otherwise, if you're going to stick with the 5 second call, you have to also throw some T's for too many players on the floor. Can't call one infraction and ignore another.

Johnny will have to clarify.

[Back In The Saddle]

I guess I'm venturing way out onto the thin, non-rules-backed ice here, but if I'm T (well, if I'm T I'm going to know that L gave the ball and I'm hitting the whistle, but....) I'm going to L and tell him, my hand was up, Partner. That ball never became live. Period.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

I guess I'm venturing way out onto the thin, non-rules-backed ice here, but if I'm T (well, if I'm T I'm going to know that L gave the ball and I'm hitting the whistle, but....) I'm going to L and tell him, my hand was up, Partner. That ball never became live. Period.

Yup, you are venturing into non-rules backed territory. The ball became live as soon as the lead placed it at the disposal of the thrower. The Trail's hand in the air doesn't kill the play. The only way the trail can kill it is by blowing his whistle before the L called the violation. That didn't happen, so.......

If you can whistle it before the violation is called, fine, go ahead and re-set the play. If not, then there's no rule that I know of that will allow you to re-set it after the violation is called.

Sometimes the rules won't allow us to do what we think is "fair". Gotta remember though that we gotta be "fair" to the defensive team too. They played good defense to cause the violation; they shouldn't be penalized for doing so.

[ChuckElias]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

The ball became live as soon as the lead placed it at the disposal of the thrower.

Didn't there used to be a rule or case that said the referee could declare that the ball never became live?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by ChuckElias

Didn't there used to be a rule or case that said the referee could declare that the ball never became live?

Not that I can remember, Chuck.

Can't change history, unless it's a correctable error or a timer/scorer mistake.

[FrankHtown]

I wish i had my case book, but I believe there is a case where the free throw shooter fumbles the ball, and is about to violate. I think the case says blow the ball dead, like it never became live, and reset the free thorw. (NF)

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by FrankHtown

I wish i had my case book, but I believe there is a case where the free throw shooter fumbles the ball, and is about to violate. I think the case says blow the ball dead, like it never became live, and reset the free thorw. (NF)

FREE-THROWER LOSES BALL
9.1.1 SITUATION: A1, at the free throw line to attempt a free throw (a) muffs the pass from the official and it rolls forward; or (b) accidentally drops the ball before the throwing motion is started. RULING: In (a) and (b) the official should sound the whistle to prevent any violations and then start the free throw procedure again.


I don't think that giving the ball back to the FT shooter means that the ball NEVER became live. It certainly did. If a foul or violation had occurred prior to him losing the ball that action would stand. I could envision readministering the FT with a delayed lane violation.

Also notice that the referee is instructed to whistle "to prevent any violations." How could they violate if the ball was never live? It was live.

[LarryS]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

Which is what I understood the play to be. Otherwise, if you're going to stick with the 5 second call, you have to also throw some T's for too many players on the floor. Can't call one infraction and ignore another.

Johnny will have to clarify.

While I agree...OUCH.

On the 1 to 10 scale for angry people in the gym...you just went from 5 to 50

I can honestly say this is one goof I have never made...yet

As much as you want to be fair...sounds like you did the right thing.

[rainmaker]

I can imagine that the trail might not have been in a position to see the ball in the hands of the thrower-in, as opposed to the hands of the lead. So he wouldn't have hit the whistle to alert the lead of the problem. That being said, I think both refs need to share the blame on this. Tony's "cluster*" characterization is probably appropriate, although you'll never be able to quote me directly on that, I hope!

I think this is probably one of those things where I'd risk a reprimand in my permanent record, and go with a re-set. I just can't imagine turning the ball over in this situation.

[johnnyrao]

This is all great information. We have another tournament this weekend and I will use this situation as a good starting point for a discussion. Hopefully we will have more of our officials this weekend because I count at least three situations that happened to me this weekend that I learned from. I messed two up and one I got right but I may not call it the same way in a close game in a crowded gym in January. I'll explain if anyone is interested.

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

I think this is probably one of those things where I'd risk a reprimand in my permanent record, and go with a re-set. I just can't imagine turning the ball over in this situation.

Let's review the facts:

L puts ball in play on a throw-in for team A. He then calls a 5 second violation. Then the T comes in & informs the L that for some unkown reason the ball should not have been made live. L sticks with his call, gives the ball to team B.

Your decision is not based on any rule that I can see. So based on what definition of fair play are you going to take the ball away from team B and give it to A?

[Back In The Saddle]

I recant my earlier statement about skating on thin, non-rules-backed ice. Upon further review, it appears that there is a solid basis for claiming that the ball never became live and the violation should be ignored.

It is certainly true that 6-1-2-b says “The ball becomes live when: On a throw-in, it is at the disposal of the thrower.” That sounds pretty authoritative, pretty absolute. It sounds that way because the rules committee opted not to complicate 6-1-2 with details about when it isn't true. But they did attach the following note directly to 6-1-2: "Any rules statement is made on the assumption that no infraction is involved unless mentioned or implied. If such infraction occurs, the rule governing it is followed. For example, a game or extra period will not start with a jump ball if a foul occurs before the ball becomes live." So we need to consider that there are circumstances where some other rule takes precedence over 6-1-2.

5-8-2-c & d say: "Time-out occurs and the clock, if running, shall be stopped when an official: ...Stops play: ...Because of unusual delay in getting a dead ball live." or "...For any other situations or any emergency." Whether you consider stopping play to bring in subs to be an "unusual delay" or just "any other situation," the official is clearly permitted to do it, and by doing so has caused time-out.

Now you may certainly argue that while the T did stop play, the L subsequently started it again by giving the thrower the ball. But 5-9-1 says: "After time has been out, the clock shall be started when the official signals time-in. If the official neglects to signal, the timer is authorized to start the clock as per rule, unless an official specifically signals continued time-out."

How does an official stop play and cause time-out to occur? By putting his hand up and blowing his whistle. How does an official signal continued time-out? By keeping his hand up. Does continued time-out indicate a dead ball, of course it does.

The argument was made that since the T didn't sound his whistle to stop the throw-in, the ball became live and the subsequent play must stand. However, "The official's whistle seldom causes the ball to become dead (it is already dead)." Since the ball cannot be live during continued time-out, and our intrepid T was signaling continued time-out, "it is already dead", lack of whistle not withstanding.

Also, consider the equal authority clause: “No official has the authority to set aside or question decisions made by the other official(s)” there is at least one notable exception, the timer’s decision to start the clock “as per rule” is specifically set aside by the official’s decision to signal continued time-out. And if the clock cannot start, how can we sensibly argue that the ball should be live anyway? To do so would force the thrower into a nonsensical paradox: The ball becomes live when handed to the thrower, but the clock cannot start even if the thrower passes the ball inbounds. The only thing he can do successfully is violate. Such an argument also ignores 6-1-2-Note.

So, when an official is signaling continued time-out, and his partner erroneously puts the ball at the disposal of the thrower, that official has very solid backing to rule that the ball never became live and any subsequent action (except perhaps intentional and flagrant fouls) should be ignored.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

1)It is certainly true that 6-1-2-b says “The ball becomes live when: On a throw-in, it is at the disposal of the thrower.”

2) So we need to consider that there are circumstances where some other rule takes precedence over 6-1-2.

3) 5-8-2-c & d say: "Time-out occurs and the clock, if running, shall be stopped when an official: ...Stops play: ...Because of unusual delay in getting a dead ball live." or "...For any other situations or any emergency." Whether you consider stopping play to bring in subs to be an "unusual delay" or just "any other situation," the official is clearly permitted to do it, and by doing so has caused time-out.

4) Now you may certainly argue that while the T did stop play, the L subsequently started it again by giving the thrower the ball. But 5-9-1 says: "After time has been out, the clock shall be started when the official signals time-in. If the official neglects to signal, the timer is authorized to start the clock as per rule, unless an official specifically signals continued time-out."

5) How does an official stop play and cause time-out to occur? By putting his hand up and blowing his whistle. How does an official signal continued time-out? By keeping his hand up. Does continued time-out indicate a dead ball, of course it does.

6) The argument was made that since the T didn't sound his whistle to stop the throw-in, the ball became live and the subsequent play must stand. However, "The official's whistle seldom causes the ball to become dead (it is already dead)." Since the ball cannot be live during continued time-out, and our intrepid T was signaling continued time-out, "it is already dead", lack of whistle not withstanding.

7) Also, consider the equal authority clause: “No official has the authority to set aside or question decisions made by the other official(s)” there is at least one notable exception, the timer’s decision to start the clock “as per rule” is specifically set aside by the official’s decision to signal continued time-out. And if the clock cannot start, how can we sensibly argue that the ball should be live anyway? To do so would force the thrower into a nonsensical paradox: The ball becomes live when handed to the thrower, but the clock cannot start even if the thrower passes the ball inbounds. The only thing he can do successfully is violate. Such an argument also ignores 6-1-2-Note.

8) So, when an official is signaling continued time-out, and his partner erroneously puts the ball at the disposal of the thrower, that official has very solid backing to rule that the ball never became live and any subsequent action (except perhaps intentional and flagrant fouls) should be ignored.

1) Yup, the the rules do say dat.

2)OK

3) That's nice.....but play was never stopped during the throw-in. It was stopped for a 5-second violation by the administering official.

4) Nope, I'm telling you that the trail never stopped play. Says so right in the first post of this thread. The only "stopped play" in this situation came when the lead stopped play for the 5-second violation by blowing his whistle. The timer quite properly and by rule never started the clock.

5) Agree completely. That's exactly what the lead did.

6) Agree. Too bad the trail never blew his whistle or your statement might even be a little wee bit relevant. There was no "continued time-out" by the trail because there never was a time-out during the throw-in. And as for continued time-out, that's what happened the lead blew his whistle for the 5-second violation. No whistle was blown during the throw-in that would have made the ball dead on that throw-in.

7) The timer kept the clock stopped, as per rule, when the lead signalled a throw-in violation by blowing his whistle and giving a continued stop clock signal. There was no "continued time-out" signal before that.

8) Please cite some rules, any rules, that would back up this statement.

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

1) Yup, the the rules do say dat.

2)OK

3) That's nice.....but play was never stopped during the throw-in. It was stopped for a 5-second violation by the administering official.

4) Nope, I'm telling you that the trail never stopped play. Says so right in the first post of this thread. The only "stopped play" in this situation came when the lead stopped play for the 5-second violation by blowing his whistle. The timer quite properly and by rule never started the clock.

5) Agree completely. That's exactly what the lead did.

6) Agree. Too bad the trail never blew his whistle or your statement might even be a little wee bit relevant. There was no "continued time-out" by the trail because there never was a time-out during the throw-in. And as for continued time-out, that's what happened the lead blew his whistle for the 5-second violation. No whistle was blown during the throw-in that would have made the ball dead on that throw-in.

7) The timer kept the clock stopped, as per rule, when the lead signalled a throw-in violation by blowing his whistle and giving a continued stop clock signal. There was no "continued time-out" signal before that.

8) Please cite some rules, any rules, that would back up this statement.

3 & 4) Play had previously been stopped. For what, we don't know. But we have a throw-in and an official bringing in subs. Clearly play was previously stopped. And, as the original post makes clear, the T was clearly signaling that play was to remain stopped, even as the L unwittingly tried to put the ball in play.

5) Yes, this is true. Of course, his partner was already doing the same thing, and had been since before the L gave the thrower the ball. The T, had in fact, been signaling that play was not to continue.

6) The T was signalling continued time-out during the throw-in. Per the OP, "The Trail came to me and told me that I made a mistake because he had his hand up indicating subs were coming into the game so I should not have administered the throw-in." Perhaps you're arguing that the T having his hand up is NOT signaling continued time-out? If so, then please explain how an official properly signals continued time-out.

7) Agreed the timer should normally have kept the clock stopped during a throw-in. In this situation, however, there are more reasons that just the erroneous throw-in violation, since the T having his hand up is signaling continued time-out.

Let's turn this sitch around a bit. What if the throw-in had been successful and you've got a substitution partially completed. Some of the subs have come on the floor, some have not. Some of the players have left, some have not. The ball has been thrown in, and....what, we just let it go and hope the rest of the subs hurry and finish going on and off? Or maybe we T them up if they do finish the substitution after the ball is live? You realize, of course, that the clock can't be running so long as the T continues to signal continued time-out. So...we play on without the clock? No. Of course you'd stop the play. You have no real choice. It's obvious. But why is it different if the throw-in is success and/or you have subs? Your basic premise of if-the-T-didn't-whistle-then-the-play-must-stand is inconsistent.

8) I have clearly cited all the necessary rules, and logically laid out the basis for this statement. It is plain. The fact that an official can continue to signal continued time-out is clearly codified. And we all do it regularly when we keep our hand raised. The fact that the clock cannot be started, even "as per rule," clearly indicates that this continued time-out signal trumps whatever play that official's partner(s) erroneously allows to happen. What other possible, logical conclusion can be drawn?

Now it's your turn. You have unequivocably stated that the T's hand in the air, without subs, is meaningless, despite clearly contradicting 5-9-1. Please provide a citation.

You then agreed with Tony that subs coming and going would make a difference. How can this be? Either the ball is allowed to be live while the T is signaling, or it isn't. What possible difference could subs make? Please provide a citation.

You have said that if the T had blown his whistle before the 5 seconds was up, that would have made a difference. Why? If, as you assert, the ball is properly live. What is your basis for killing this live ball? Surely that basis is sufficient to continue the time-out. Please provide a citation.

You have said that since the T didn't blow his whistle, and the violation occurred, this is a regrettable, but non-correctable error. Please provide a citation.

Finally, you seem clearly to base your reasoning around the ball absolutely becoming live because the L put it at the disposal of the thrower, this despite 6-1-2-Note and my generalization, which you agreed with, that there are times when some other rule takes precidence over 6-1-2. Please explain how the ball becoming live trumps 5-9-1 and the conclusions I have drawn from it. Please provide a citation.

[Nevadaref]

BITS, That is decent try. I don't agree with it, but I do appreciate time and effort you put forth. Now I have to accept the intellectual challenge and demonstrate why it is not as you argue.

I will go through your post point-by-point as JR did (although I believe that he failed to grasp your main one), but first I must state that your contention that the ball cannot become live due to the Trail holding his hand in the air fails miserably in the NCAA womens game. Afterall, that's the approved mechanic for chopping in the clock when the Lead administers a throw-in!
Now to your post which I will argue solely with NFHS rules and mechanics.

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

It is certainly true that 6-1-2-b says “The ball becomes live when: On a throw-in, it is at the disposal of the thrower.” That sounds pretty authoritative, pretty absolute. It sounds that way because the rules committee opted not to complicate 6-1-2 with details about when it isn't true. But they did attach the following note directly to 6-1-2: "Any rules statement is made on the assumption that no infraction is involved unless mentioned or implied. If such infraction occurs, the rule governing it is followed. For example, a game or extra period will not start with a jump ball if a foul occurs before the ball becomes live." So we need to consider that there are circumstances where some other rule takes precedence over 6-1-2.

Yep, so we are looking for something that would tell us that the Trail desire that play not restart takes precedence over the Lead's desire and action to restart it or vice versa.

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

5-8-2-c & d say: "Time-out occurs and the clock, if running, shall be stopped when an official: ...Stops play: ...Because of unusual delay in getting a dead ball live." or "...For any other situations or any emergency." Whether you consider stopping play to bring in subs to be an "unusual delay" or just "any other situation," the official is clearly permitted to do it, and by doing so has caused time-out.

I don't consider this part to be relevant. The clock is already stopped during the situation at hand and we know that time is out. What we are debating is whether time continues to be out or not. So let's move on.

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

Now you may certainly argue that while the T did stop play, the L subsequently started it again by giving the thrower the ball.

We have no idea who originally stopped the play. The OP didn't tell us. The Trail did desire to prevent play from restarting and the Lead equally desired it to restart. Who carries more weight in that situation is the debate.

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

But 5-9-1 says: "After time has been out, the clock shall be started when the official signals time-in. If the official neglects to signal, the timer is authorized to start the clock as per rule, unless an official specifically signals continued time-out."

But aren't both officials signalling continued time-out during this action? The Lead is handing the ball to the thrower and holding his hand up. The Trail is standing there watching and also holding his hand up. The timer should be doing nothing, but watching. As far as he knows both officials are happy with the action taking place. There has not been any signal to the contrary. Well perhaps there is. In NFHS, the Trail should not have his hand up, but what timer knows that? Heck, if his partner doesn't think anything is wrong, why should the timer? We shouldn't be playing, but we are! So what carries the day de jure or de facto? Most frequently de facto wins that case.

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

How does an official stop play and cause time-out to occur? By putting his hand up and blowing his whistle. How does an official signal continued time-out? By keeping his hand up. Does continued time-out indicate a dead ball, of course it does.

Agreed and we do have one official attempting to do that. His partner is ignoring him though.

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

The argument was made that since the T didn't sound his whistle to stop the throw-in, the ball became live and the subsequent play must stand. However, "The official's whistle seldom causes the ball to become dead (it is already dead)." Since the ball cannot be live during continued time-out, and our intrepid T was signaling continued time-out, "it is already dead", lack of whistle not withstanding.

I don't agree with that. Every throw-in has the ball become live during continued time-out. You are trying to say that the Trail is signalling a continued dead ball. Symantics really, so let's grant you that part. The problem is that we have the other official taking action to make the ball live. So now it is A vs B and we still don't have any reason to pick one over the other. Your best argument is to say that A signalled first! We'll have to come back to that.

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

Also, consider the equal authority clause: “No official has the authority to set aside or question decisions made by the other official(s)” there is at least one notable exception, the timer’s decision to start the clock “as per rule” is specifically set aside by the official’s decision to signal continued time-out.

The equal authority clause applies to game officials on the court, not to the table crew. Therefore, what you are trying to say by this doesn't follow logically. This is a battle between the Trail and Lead on the floor. The timer is not part of it.

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

And if the clock cannot start, how can we sensibly argue that the ball should be live anyway? To do so would force the thrower into a nonsensical paradox: The ball becomes live when handed to the thrower, but the clock cannot start even if the thrower passes the ball inbounds. The only thing he can do successfully is violate. Such an argument also ignores 6-1-2-Note.

You are assuming the conclusion before proving it is true. Why can't the clock start? Because the Trail has his hand up, but you have yet to demonstrate why that takes precedence over the Lead administering the throw-in and starting play. If the throw-in had been completed, the Lead would certainly chop in time and might well even start a closely guarded count. If the play was at the other end of the floor and the administering official was the Trail, he would certainly start a 10 second backcourt count. So if the timer is watching that official, the clock is going to start. At best the timer is going to see the two officials doing different things and be confused as to what to do.
Here is where you can point to 5-9-1 and argue that an official is specifically signalling continued time-out. However, we can't dispense with the first part of that sentence. "If the official neglects to signal, the timer is authorized to start the clock as per rule, unless an official specifically signals continued time-out." The covering official hasn't neglected to signal in our play because the ball has not yet been touched inbounds, so this sentence isn't relevant for our specific play. Yet I will even continue further and allow for the case in which the throw-in is completed, since that is what you are basing your paradox upon. If that does happen, is the Lead going to neglect to signal? I doubt it. So again this rule is not applicable. We have one official signalling time in and another signalling continued time out. Still no decision on who takes priority. Again I believe that the best you can do is say that the continued time-out signal came first and therefore should have priority. I'll counter that later.

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

So, when an official is signaling continued time-out, and his partner erroneously puts the ball at the disposal of the thrower, that official has very solid backing to rule that the ball never became live and any subsequent action (except perhaps intentional and flagrant fouls) should be ignored.

First, I don't concur that you have proven your case. It is at best indeterminate so far. Second, I don't agree that an official signalling or stating that the ball will remain or become dead necessarily makes it so. The same for it becoming live. That's a rather confusing statement, so allow me to elaborate. I went through the case book seeking plays in which the ball was supposed to be of one status (live or dead), but it became the other. I was especially looking for case plays in which the real game action was consequently nullified or could not be nullified.