I recently spoke with an official who has a similar philosophy about the note in 5-8-2. His position is that he is not going to stop play when a team attempts a try for goal and misses, if he can see that they have an easy rebound and put back. He feels that is the right thing to do in the case of an opponent being down injured away from the area of the play.

It seems that by the book, the whistle should be blown, no rebound permitted, and the game resumed with the AP arrow.

How do others feel about this? Is this a poor NFHS rule? Should we follow it anyway? Should we ignore it? Should we lobby for it to be changed?

1) If you think that there is evidence in the rule book, then please cite your evidence.

2) Um, no, I sureasheck <b>know</b> that it's not right. I also know that making a call like that deliberately and ignoring written rules would get you suspended in my area. Putting time back on the clock when you <b>don't</b> know how much time should go back on and then counting a shot that shouldn't be counted by rule might cost a team a game. If the opposing team was up by 2 or 3 when you decided to give the shooting team that <b>free</b> basket, it gives them a shot a tying or winning a game that they <b>shouldn't</b> have a shot at. If you think that's <b>"right"</b>, your concept of "right" sureasheck is different than mine. The "NFHS official clarification" has been in the rule book, unchanged, for at least the last 50 years. If a shot isn't in the air when a period ends, it <b>doesn't</b> count and it <b>never</b> has counted.

You said "in ALMOST all circumstances" also. What determines when you feel like enforcing or not enforcing a rule? Iow, sometimes you'll count the basket and sometimes you won't?

Btw, it was the <b>same</b> way when we did have "lag time" too. The rules wouldn't allow you to guess at how much time to put back on the clock and you can't count a basket when the ball wasn't in the air when a period ended.

What is it lately with posters here saying just ignore the rules if you don't happen to like or agree with them?:rolleyes:

Continuation does not allow for a release after the horn.

I did not know that. I always thought once the act of shooting motion has started, the shooter is allowed to complete the act. This is a great topic.

What if, you put air in the whistle on a foul where you feel the shooter has started his habitual moition, and the horn goes off, and the player passes the ball instead of shooting it, and the team is not in the bonus. Is the game over or do you put time back on the clock, or do you award foul shots?

Great question, I'm glad you bought it up. I did not know that little difference in the rules. I could be in the act of shooting, but if the ball has not left my hands, no shot.

Jurassic by eliminating lag time you have to count the basket if you know for a fact that the horn came after the whistle. By eliminating lag time that means that time has to be put back on the clock, cause if your whistle blows before the horn then the clock should have stopped when the whistle blew. This is why I do like and do not lag time being eliminated. I like it because you can put exact time back on if you know the time for sure and kids don't get screwed at the end of games if their was under 1 second left, but I don't like it because in the college and pro game in this situation they have had it eliminated because they can go to the replay monitor and check and see when the foul was committed and how much time should be up. If the foul is committed before the horn and the horn goes off, they put time back on. If it is determined that the horn went off before the foul the game is over. You can not count it as much as you want but it just seems that the NFHS needs to go back over all plays that would have to deal with lag time and correct them.

Just to state as well:

I had a game in the preseason where this play happened. We had a foul, then horn. Although the ball did not go in we gave the kid 3 shots without putting time back on the clock and I was devastated when I screwed that up on top of not giving the coach of the opposing team a timeout before the FT's because I was thinking of successive timeout's at the end of a game and/or overtime. Needless to say I screwed the whole thing up.

Good point. The clock should have stopped JR on the whistle, and I have definite knowledge my whistle went off b4 the horn, which means count the bucket, continuation. And we put .XX seconds back on the clock.

Not in all college games. I'm not sure I understand your point on lag time being eliminated. My point here is that now, you can count continuation of the shooting motion because the clock should have stopped on the whistle. At first I was thinking the horn came before the shot was release and therefore no shot. My question is: If you are in the act of shooting, you release the shot 2-point try, it's unsuccessful, horn goes off, 1 point game, before returning to the floor shooter is fouled. Is the foul ignored because the period has ended? Or do we count the foul as a shooting foul as it is part of the act of shooting? Maybe I've confused myself, that's not hard to do but I'm wondering if the same priniciples apply in a different but same type of situation.

I have to admit I am not following this one real well so forgive me but on the original ruling from the Cawtaba River association are they trying to say that due to the elimination of lag time that this is a circumstance under which you would count a basket as good even though the horn blows before the shooter has released the ball?

Point by point......

1) No, btaylor, you do <b>not</b> count the basket unless the ball was in the air <b>BEFORE</b> the horn. There is <b>NOT</b> now and there <b>NEVER</b> has been any rule that will allow you to do that. NFHS rules 6-7-6&7 and 6-7EXCEPTION(c) tell you different. If you can find rule(s) somewhere that will back up your statement above, then please cite it/them.

2) No, it sureasheck <b.DOESN'T</b> mean that you <b>HAVE</b> to put time back on the clock. You can only put time back on the clock if you're 118% sure of the <b>EXACT</b> time that must go back on the clock.You have to have <b>DEFINITE</b> knowledge to put time back on the clock. Says so right in NFHS rule 5-10-1. It don't matter a damn whether the clock should have stopped or not. If it didn't, you can't put any time back on unless you know the exact time that you need to put back on. There's no guessing allowed, and there never has been. In this particular situation, the officials did <b>NOT</b> have definite knowledge of how much time was on the clock when their whistle blew. That's why they can't go back and put <b>ANY</b> time on.

Based on your answer here JR I guess then that they are trying to justify counting a basket when the horn goes off before the release.

I'll tell you what JR. If you and me and someone who believes this are 3-manning together this year and they make this call then THEY are the one that are going to get to explain it to the coach ALL BY THEMSELVES. While you and me stand waaaaaaaayyy over on the other side of the court. Perhaps even next to the exit.

D@mmit! Now I have to rethink my position on this. :)
Seriously, I'm not trying to justify anything or to ignore any rules. I'm looking at the removal of the lag time and thinking about its affect on the rest of the game; particularly the end of the game.
I think an argument can be made to support counting the bucket and ending the game. I have definitely knowledge that the shot was released before time should have elapsed (a timer's error), but I don't know how much time to put on so I can't put any on.
I'll get home and look up the rules cites that JR gave, though, before I stick to my guns on this.
Also, I'm going to get direction from my assignor at tomorrow night's association meeting to see how they want us to handle it at the local level.

What we've got here, is a failure to communicate.

"Definite knowledge" is a specific number. It is <B>not</B> "I know my whistle blew before the horn." Iow, you cannot guess what number to put back on the clock in this situation, even if you know there is some time to be put back on. Hopefully someone in the crew will know that number. But only "The exact time observed by the official may be placed on the clock."

I think a point that needs to be made here is that perhaps trying to think of its affect on the rest of the game is thinking too much.

It's doubtful that I do, but if I understand everybody else's argument then another way of shooting this down is to say that if you blow your whistle and (based on the elimination of the lag time) the clock was supposed to have stopped at that instant....then the ball was released when the clock was supposed to have been stopped (and you plan to put time back on),,,,so it's a dead ball that is being released...still no basket.

Also it certainly wasn't the intent of the elimination of the lag time to allow for baskets to be counted that didn't used to be counted. There was never any demand for that one.

Just because the clock stops doesn't mean the ball is dead. If the shooter is in his habitual motion, then the ball remains live even if the clock is stopped for a foul.

They do have definite knowlege that time had not run out. The whistle had sounded, but not the horn, therefore time had not run out, ipso facto. They have no definite knowlege of how much time was left, just that there was indeed some time left. This should be enough to allow the basket, and shoot the foul shot with the lane cleared. QED.

I would suggest that the ruling as posted on the district3hoops site is correct.

So how does that fit in the wording of rule 5-10-1?

True. But I am trying to speaking in the context of what they are trying to justify here.... whether or not the basket would count if the ball is released after the horn goes off. And the official calling this would have to seemingly retroactively count the basket because....the clock should have stopped therefore allowing the basket to count even though the release itself was after the horn.

I just don't think that this was the intent of the rule change.