Foul then Buzzer then shot - Interesting brand new ruling

[Camron Rust]

Just to play the devil's advocate a bit...

A few plays (that I made up) with rulings based on Jurrassic's views (as I understand them)...

With A down by 3 and the shot in the plays is for 2 points...

Play: A1 starts a shot, is fouled, whistle is blown, ref sees 0.3 seconds on the clock and the clock stops at 0.3, A1 then releases the shot (more than 0.3 seconds later), the shot goes in. Ruling: count the basket, shoot 1 FT.

Play: A1 starts a shot, is fouled, whistle is blown, ref sees 0.3 seconds on the clock but clock runs out, horn sounds, A1 then releases the shot, the shot goes in. Ruling: put 0.3 second on the clock, count the basket, shoot 1 FT.

Play: A1 starts a shot, is fouled, whistle is blown, ref can't see the clock (or doesn't look at the clock) and it runs out, horn sounds, A1 then releases the shot, the shot goes in. Ruling: put no time on the clock, don't count the basket, no FT's, A loses.


In this last case, the ref KNOWS that the whistle clearly preceeded the horn, that the clock should have stopped with time left, that the shot would be during a live ball if the clock had been properly stopped, that team A should be on the line with a chance to tie the game. The only difference may be that the ref was at an angle to the clock where he/she couldn't see the exact time of the whistle....but it was clearly before the horn. Why should the shot depend in seeing the clock? I could see the argument for not putting time back up (but even that is debateable...I have a count in my head in all endgame situations just for that occurance that I'll use even if I can't see the clock), but waiving off the shot too??