Long Time Lurker, First Time Poster

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by socalreff

Here's a little more info from NCAA.

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.

I'm sorry, I just don't see what all this has to do with the original play or the suggestion to wait until someone touches the ball (he probably should have said *controls* the ball but that doesn't matter). None of this is a 'do-over'.

What would you do again?

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

I am joining this thread late. But here is my take on the situation.

I am not going to do anything until A2 picks up the ball. The moment that A2 takes control of the ball I am going to stop play and do the following things: 1) I am going to correct the clock to 32.2 seconds. I know that is the exact time on the clock because I have definite knowledge of the time. 2) I am going to Team A the ball for a throw-in nearest to the spot that A2 took control of the ball.

Remember, Team A has not done anything wrong in this situation. Team A is doing what the rules allow them to do. The Timer has made a msitake that should not be used against Team A to stop play too soon.

MTD, Sr.

[socalreff]

Originally Posted by Dan_ref

I'm sorry, I just don't see what all this has to do with the original play or the suggestion to wait until someone touches the ball (he probably should have said *controls* the ball but that doesn't matter). None of this is a 'do-over'.

What would you do again?

Since the whistle blew b4 a player touched the ball, it is not a "do-over" to resume at the point of interruption. The throw-in was never completed so you must inbound at the original spot. Basic stuff to me. The NCAA change said that if the case was that he had touched it, the official could take off the appropriate time (estimate) and does not have to know exactly how much. And then have the throw-in closest to where it was touched.

Hope I'm not clear as mud.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

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.

JR:

We are going to have to agree to disagree on this play. See my first post in this thread. This play really is not different that then monumental one of a year or so ago. And so what if B2 runs in and intercepts the inbounds pass. The Timer's mistake has no bearing on the throw-in. It is not a do-over.

MTD, Sr.

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by socalreff

Since the whistle blew b4 a player touched the ball, it is not a "do-over" to resume at the point of interruption. The throw-in was never completed so you must inbound at the original spot. Basic stuff to me. The NCAA change said that if the case was that he had touched it, the official could take off the appropriate time (estimate) and does not have to know exactly how much. And then have the throw-in closest to where it was touched.

Hope I'm not clear as mud.

I still can't see where this play is covered by these bulletins.

There are 2 ways to handle it:

1. Blow it dead before the touch and fix the clock.
2. Blow it dead after the touch and fix the clock.
(well, a 3rd way is you can ignore it I guess)

In either case you know (or should know) how to fix the clock. The only part that is relevant is the NCAA's telling us to adjust the clock even though there might be some uncertainty, and that seems to be your response to JR's (stupid) question.

I don't think anyone is asking for a do-over. The only disagreement is where the throw-in is if you take the first choice. Seems that you, JR & I agree it should go back to the endline.

[Camron Rust]

My opinion...

If the whistle is blown before the throwin is touched, the ball goes back to the orignal spot. The ball becomes dead when no team is in control of the ball but when one team is due a throwin. It is just like an inadvertant whistle as far as how it should be restarted. To advance the ball gives the throwin team an advantage. They would get the ball halfway down the court with the clock stopped and an opportunity to throw it further down the court (with full speed and in any direction) rather than having it rolling at midcourt in one slow direction.

If the whistle is blown after the touch, the ball is at that spot. A gained an advantage but it is supported by rule.

I'd do the former. Blow the whistle as soon as I see the clock running early.

[26 Year Gap]

Which team inbounded? Home or visitors? I think I would look at 2-3 here as well. I think there is merit with either response, but I would probably put it in play at the point where the ball ended up. I will copy and paste the original sitch and send it to my interpreter who is on the rules committee, though, and let people know what the response is.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by SoInZebra

Greetings all - had a play last weekend that I would like some opinions on:

After a TO, Team A (down by 6) is inbounding the ball on the endline after a made basket with 32.3 seconds in the 4th QTR. A1 throws the ball in and A2 allows it to bounce/roll to about midcourt without touching it in an attempt to keep the clock stopped.

As soon as I realize that A2 has not touched the ball I glance up and see the clock running. When I kill the play the ball is roughly at the division line. After instructing the timer to put 32.3 back up I would be interested in hearing your thoughts on where to inbound the ball.

For the record I inbounded at half court with 32.3 on the clock because that was the location of the live ball when I stopped play to fix the timing error and I could see Team B's coach salivating over the opportunity to put the ball on the endline and slap a press on, in effect allowing the timing error to deny Team A the precious 2 or 3 seconds it earned on the original inbound.

I happen to believe that this play IS covered by the current NFHS rules, unfortunately quite poorly.

The pertinent rules are:

DEAD BALL
6-7-5 The ball becomes dead, or remains dead, when:
. . . An official's whistle is blown

ALTERNATING POSSESSION
6-4-3 . . . Alternating-possession throw-ins shall be from the out-of-bounds spot nearest to where the ball was located. An alternating-possession throw-in shall result when:
e. The ball becomes dead when neither team is in control and no goal, infraction nor end of a quarter/extra period is involved.

CONTROL, PLAYER AND TEAM
4-12-6 . . . Neither team control nor player control exists during a dead ball, throw-in, a jump ball or when the ball is in flight during a try or tap for goal.

BALL LOCATION,
4-4-3 . . . A ball which is in flight retains the same location as when it was last in contact with a player or the court.

Therefore, by the current wording of the NFHS rules, this play results in an AP throw-in from the nearest OOB spot to where the ball last contacted the floor. I'll state now that I believe that this is an absolutely horrible outcome, but it is the current application of the rules. In my opinion, any official who did it that way would need a police escort out of the gym, if the arrow happened to favor the defense. So what else can we do?

What should have been done two years ago when the definition of POI was added is that the sentence from 6-4-3e should have been moved into 4-36-1. It is very similar to an interrupted game, but not exactly the same. The two should be treated in the same manner though. (Note: Until the rules are changed, I'm ruling that the situation in the OP IS an "interrupted game" and applying the POI rule.)

What this would do is allow the POI sequence to properly be applied to this situation. 4-36-2a would be bypassed as there is no team control, but 4-36-2b would take precedence over 4-36-2c, since the stoppage occurred DURING the throw-in, thus the AP arrow would not need to be used. (However, if the ball had been tapped or deflected on the court, but the whistle sounded prior to control being established, then 4-36-2c would take effect.)

RULE 4, SECTION 36 POINT OF INTERRUPTION
ART. 1 . . . Method of resuming play due to an official's accidental whistle, an interrupted game, as in 5-4-3, a correctable error, as in 2-10-6, a double personal, double technical or simultaneous foul, as in 4-19-8 and 4-19-10. [The ball becomes dead when neither team is in control and no goal, infraction, (time-out,) nor end of a quarter/extra period is involved.]
ART. 2 …Play shall be resumed by one of the following:
a. A throw-in to the team that was in control at a spot nearest to where the ball was located when the stoppage occurred.
b. A free throw or a throw-in when the stoppage occurred during this activity or if a team is entitled to such.
c. An alternating-possession throw-in when the point of interruption is such that neither team is in control and no goal, infraction, nor end of quarter/extra period is involved.

Applying this would give the ball back to the throwing team at the original throw-in location because 4-36-2b does NOT say ball location. A casebook play could be added to clarify this.

I'll pass this along to my fellow NV official who is on the NFHS rules committee. The wording needs some fine-tuning to account for time-outs, but I think that we can make it right.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I happen to believe that this play IS covered by the current NFHS rules, unfortunately quite poorly.

The pertinent rules are:

DEAD BALL
6-7-5 The ball becomes dead, or remains dead, when:
. . . An official's whistle is blown

ALTERNATING POSSESSION
6-4-3 . . . Alternating-possession throw-ins shall be from the out-of-bounds spot nearest to where the ball was located. An alternating-possession throw-in shall result when:
e. The ball becomes dead when neither team is in control and no goal, infraction nor end of a quarter/extra period is involved.

CONTROL, PLAYER AND TEAM
4-12-6 . . . Neither team control nor player control exists during a dead ball, throw-in, a jump ball or when the ball is in flight during a try or tap for goal.

BALL LOCATION,
4-3-3 . . . A ball which is in flight retains the same location as when it was last in contact with a player or the court.

Therefore, by the current wording of the NFHS rules, this play results in an AP throw-in from the nearest OOB spot to where the ball last contacted the floor. I'll state now that I believe that this is an absolutely horrible outcome, but it is the current application of the rules. In my opinion, any official who did it that way would need a police escort out of the gym, if the arrow happened to favor the defense. So what else can we do?

What should have been done two years ago when the definition of POI was added is that the sentence from 6-4-3e should have been moved into 4-36-1. It is very similar to an interrupted game, but not exactly the same. The two should be treated in the same manner though. (Note: Until the rules are changed, I'm ruling that the situation in the OP IS an "interrupted game" and applying the POI rule.)

What this would do is allow the POI sequence to properly be applied to this situation. 4-36-2a would be bypassed as there is no team control, but 4-36-2b would take precedence over 4-36-2c, since the stoppage occurred DURING the throw-in, thus the AP arrow would not need to be used. (However, if the ball had been tapped or deflected on the court, but the whistle sounded prior to control being established, then 4-36-2c would take effect.)

RULE 4, SECTION 36 POINT OF INTERRUPTION
ART. 1 . . . Method of resuming play due to an official's accidental whistle, an interrupted game, as in 5-4-3, a correctable error, as in 2-10-6, a double personal, double technical or simultaneous foul, as in 4-19-8 and 4-19-10. [The ball becomes dead when neither team is in control and no goal, infraction, (time-out,) nor end of a quarter/extra period is involved.]
ART. 2 …Play shall be resumed by one of the following:
a. A throw-in to the team that was in control at a spot nearest to where the ball was located when the stoppage occurred.
b. A free throw or a throw-in when the stoppage occurred during this activity or if a team is entitled to such.
c. An alternating-possession throw-in when the point of interruption is such that neither team is in control and no goal, infraction, nor end of quarter/extra period is involved.

Applying this would give the ball back to the throwing team at the original throw-in location because 4-36-2b does NOT say ball location. A casebook play could be added to clarify this.

I'll pass this along to my fellow NV official who is on the NFHS rules committee. The wording needs some fine-tuning to account for time-outs, but I think that we can make it right.

I happen to believe you're completely wrong. Nowayinhell is that the purpose and intent of the rule. Your personal interpretation above is just plain ludicrous.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

I happen to believe you're completely wrong. Nowayinhell is that the purpose and intent of the rule. Your personal interpretation above is just plain ludicrous.

You have to go to purpose and intent, JR, because you can't argue with the wording that I cited.

Now aren't you the guy who always says to enforce the rules AS WRITTEN?

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I happen to believe that this play IS covered by the current NFHS rules, unfortunately quite poorly.

The pertinent rules are:

BALL LOCATION,
4-3-3 . . . A ball which is in flight retains the same location as when it was last in contact with a player or the court.

Yet another bullsh1t interpretation from the King of Bullsh1t Interpretations.

Assuming you blow the whistle before anyone touches the ball after it's rolled in why does the ball retain the location it last touched on the court instead of where it last touched a player?

Note they use the word *or*.

Geeze...time to visit the ignore feature.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Dan_ref

Yet another bullsh1t interpretation from the King of Bullsh1t Interpretations.

That I'll agree with.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

You have to go to purpose and intent, JR, because you can't argue with the wording that I cited.

Now aren't you the guy who always says to enforce the rules AS WRITTEN?

Nevada, to be quite honest, I didn't read your post to the end. I was laughing too hard. You've come with some dandies before, but that one ranks right up there with your best.

Again, ludicrous.

[socalreff]

Originally Posted by Dan_ref

Yet another bullsh1t interpretation from the King of Bullsh1t Interpretations.

Assuming you blow the whistle before anyone touches the ball after it's rolled in why does the ball retain the location it last touched on the court instead of where it last touched a player?

Note they use the word *or*.

Geeze...time to visit the ignore feature.

It doesn't apply on a throw-in. So are you gonna assume the throw-in would have been completed? You can't give the team something they didn't earn. The only way the new throw-in spot changes is if the previous throw-in is completed. There was no infraction that would place the ball at a new spot when the whistle blew.

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by socalreff

It doesn't apply on a throw-in.

Ya know, I looked and I looked and I looked again and I just cannot find that little asterisk that says "does not apply to throw-ins".

You're gonna have to help me out here. Extra credit if you can quote a real rule.