Long Time Lurker, First Time Poster

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by NewNCref

Here's another thought I'd like to see what you guys think about, if there's no press on, why not just wait until he touches the ball, blow it dead, and reset the clock to the correct time, and then there's no question about where to give him the ball.

Oh? Do you a rules citation that will back up the statement that there's no question about where to give the replacement throw-in? And how much time are you going to accurately take off the clock to allow for the time that elapsed between the throw-in ending and your whistle? Or do you just ignore that time?

The play simply isn't covered.Personally, I'm taking it back to the original throw-in spot. Why? Because you're giving the throwing team an unfair advantage imo. You're letting them move the ball up the court without using any time at all to do so. That's completely unfair to the defense imo.

[Mark Dexter]

Originally Posted by NewNCref

Here's another thought I'd like to see what you guys think about, if there's no press on, why not just wait until he touches the ball, blow it dead, and reset the clock to the correct time, and then there's no question about where to give him the ball. Then again, that could be risky if the defense is anywhere near the ball or if Jon Diebler is playing defense.

I think you nailed it right there. Bottom line is that you never know what will happen in the future, so it's best to correct clock (or other) mistakes right when you notice them. (That said, no need to go overboard like me - I'm so aware of the clock that I've had it corrected in middle school blowout games.)

The ideal situation is to have Diebler ref. That way he can do the book and the clock all at the same time.

[NewNCref]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Oh? Do you a rules citation that will back up the statement that there's no question about where to give the replacement throw-in? And how much time are you going to accurately take off the clock to allow for the time that elapsed between the throw-in ending and your whistle? Or do you just ignore that time?

The play simply isn't covered.Personally, I'm taking it back to the original throw-in spot. Why? Because you're giving the throwing team an unfair advantage imo. You're letting them move the ball up the court without using any time at all to do so. That's completely unfair to the defense imo.

If the guy is just letting it bounce in front of him, without touching it as to delay the start of the clock, and then grabs it with both hands, the clock would start at the same moment that player control was gained. I can then say that he gained possession of the ball at the time that should have been on the clock (though granted my knowledge of physics is lacking, I think I'm probably making some wrong assertion about simultaneous events).

I do agree with you, JR, that it does seem like an unfair advantage is being gained, but during every throw-in, the throwing team gets to move the ball up the court without using any time. It could be rolled to half court before it's touched, and you're already halfway to the basket without using any time. Considering it was an timer's error, and not some play designed for them to move the ball up the court without using any time, I'm okay with it in this regard.

The reason I would not do it is that it's too risky, and wouldn't be proper in all situations. What if there was a defender on him who then stole the ball, or if he doesn't immediately grab the ball, but tips it. It's all too risky, so I wouldn't try it. Just thinking out loud to get other's opinions.

[Mark Dexter]

Originally Posted by NewNCref

If the guy is just letting it bounce in front of him, without touching it as to delay the start of the clock, and then grabs it with both hands, the clock would start at the same moment that player control was gained. I can then say that he gained possession of the ball at the time that should have been on the clock (though granted my knowledge of physics is lacking, I think I'm probably making some wrong assertion about simultaneous events).

Yeah. Technically, in this case, there would be time between when the ball was touched and when the whistle was blown. FWIW, the NBA rules/clock guidelines state that AT LEAST 0.3 must come off the clock when the ball is inbounded and followed by a quick whistle.

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

The play simply isn't covered.Personally, I'm taking it back to the original throw-in spot. Why? Because you're giving the throwing team an unfair advantage imo. You're letting them move the ball up the court without using any time at all to do so. That's completely unfair to the defense imo.

I agree 137%

[socalreff]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Oh? Do you a rules citation that will back up the statement that there's no question about where to give the replacement throw-in? And how much time are you going to accurately take off the clock to allow for the time that elapsed between the throw-in ending and your whistle? Or do you just ignore that time?

The play simply isn't covered.Personally, I'm taking it back to the original throw-in spot. Why? Because you're giving the throwing team an unfair advantage imo. You're letting them move the ball up the court without using any time at all to do so. That's completely unfair to the defense imo.

This play was covered during this season by the NCAA in a bulletin sent out to officials via the website. If there is no touch when you blow the whistle, you must return to the throw-in spot and put the correct time on the clock.
If you blow the whistle after the touch, you inbound closest to the touch and correct the clock to what you have knowledge (how much time elapsed between the touch and the whistle).

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by socalreff

This play was covered during this season by the NCAA in a bulletin sent out to officials via the website.

Would you mind posting the ruling? I don't remember seeing it in the bulletins, and I just now checked the E-officials site and I don't see it there.

Thanks.

[Adam]

Easy then, let him touch it, start a count, and blow the whistle after a few seconds if he's not being closely guarded.

[socalreff]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

Would you mind posting the ruling? I don't remember seeing it in the bulletins, and I just now checked the E-officials site and I don't see it there.

Thanks.

I looked again on the site as well and couldn't find it either. Thinking back, it might have been issued by assignors as handed down by the NCAA.

[Texas Aggie]

Personally, I'm taking it back to the original throw-in spot. Why? Because you're giving the throwing team an unfair advantage imo.

JR is right. In some ways, you could also be penalizing the team making the throw in as they would now, at the sideline, have a spot throw in.

Either way you look at it, go back and start over.

[SoInZebra]

I understand your rationale about putting the ball back on the baseline except for your thought that Team A gained an unfair advantage in advancing the ball without any time elapsing.

Team A legally advanced the ball by throwing it in and not touching it. Team B had an opportunity to position a player or players in the backcourt to force Team A to touch the ball and start the clock. They chose not to.

It seemed then, and still does now, that it is more disadvantageous to put the ball back on the baseline and allow the defense to set up to force Team A to touch the ball inbounds quicker than they would have without the timing error and robbing of of 2-3 seconds that Team B would have allowed had teh timing error not occured.

[Adam]

Bottom line for me: it's not covered explicitly in the rules or case play; do what's right.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by socalreff

I looked again on the site as well and couldn't find it either. Thinking back, it might have been issued by assignors as handed down by the NCAA.

It wasn't handed down through my assignors on the men's side. And, I think, the women's side last year sent down an interp that there absolutely were to be no do-overs.

[socalreff]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

It wasn't handed down through my assignors on the men's side. And, I think, the women's side last year sent down an interp that there absolutely were to be no do-overs.

Putting time on/taking time off clock – ‘do-overs’.
a. The primary theme of the most recent posting addresses when it is or is not appropriate to put time on or take time off clocks. More specifically, the topic focuses on ‘do-overs’.
NCAA MEMORANDUM
January 12, 2007
Page No. 3
_________
b. According to NCAA rules, the only time that someone can put time back on the clock is when there is a timer’s mistake or a malfunctioning of the clock. If the mistake is by a shot clock operator, that mistake must be corrected within the shot clock period in which it occurred (NCAA Rule 2-6.6).
c. If the mistake is by the game clock operator, that mistake must be corrected before the second live ball is touched inbounds or out of bounds by a player (Rule 2-5.1.f).
d. As with correctable errors (Rule 2-11), there are specific windows of time in which a timer’s mistake can be corrected. After those time limits have passed, officials are not permitted by rule to correct the error. Therefore, knowing the rules is imperative to enforcing them correctly.
e. In addition, just because a play does not look right or seem fair, the job of the officials is to enforce the rules. It is not the officials’ job to reward a good play and penalize a bad play. Our job is to apply and enforce the rules, consistently, as written.
f. Officials are not permitted to perform a ‘do-over’ when things do not seem right or fair. Incorporating personal officiating philosophies with total disregard for NCAA rules is never appropriate. It may also be that officials are not totally disregarding a rule; they simply may not know the applicable rule. When officials know and enforce the rules, then the game can be called the same way for everyone who plays it.

Off of the website under conference call minutes.

[socalreff]

Here's a little more info from NCAA (Feb. 9)

The second interpretation addresses a rewrite of the ruling in A.R. 120. The ruling presently reads, “…the referee cannot correct the official timer’s mistake unless he or she knows exactly how much playing time elapsed while the game clock was stopped…” The rewrite of the ruling in A.R. 120 further supports the fact that a do-over is not permitted when there has been a timer’s mistake. This ruling was changed to clarify that officials must use all available resources and information when making a decision regarding game and/or shot clock time adjustments. Officials may not always know the exact time, as stated in the original ruling, which shall not prohibit officials from adjusting the clock(s) appropriately.