Long Time Lurker, First Time Poster

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Dan_ref

2 things:

1. Even though this is a debate between 2 people your interpretation is that one of us in in the minority. Is it possible to be promoted from King of Bullsh1t Interpretations to something higher? Emperor? Need to look into that.

2. If they meant it your way simply inserting the word "either" would have made it clear. Example: A1 is standing OOB when the ball bounces off his hands and lands OOB on the other sideline (let's assume A1 is Chuck). Where's the throw-in spot? Where it last touched the player or where it most recently touched either the player or the floor?

1. Just because you can't handle being told that your interpretation is not correct is no reason to resort to name calling. I don't believe that I have ever attempted to degrade and name-call you. Be an adult, Dan.

2. I'm sorry that the diction of the NFHS rules committee isn't up to your standards. You'll have to take that up with them. I'm still convinced that my understanding of what their words mean is quite reasonable.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by socalreff

So what I'm hearing is that you're going to complete the throw-in for them and advance the ball?!?

Let me be clear: In the OP, I believe that the current NFHS rules are terrible and should be changed. I believe that the current NFHS rules call for the official to advance the ball for the team, if the AP arrow favors them. I won't do that. I will fudge this one and say that it falls under an interrupted game, then use 4-36 (POI).

In your example, with the double foul, the ball doesn't advance per the current rules because this situation is cleary covered by the POI definition and that rule says to resume with the throw-in or FT that the stoppage occurred during.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

1. Just because you can't handle being told that your interpretation is not correct is no reason to resort to name calling. Dan.

2. I'm sorry that the diction of the NFHS rules committee isn't up to your standards. You'll have to take that up with them. I'm still convinced that my understanding of what their words mean is quite reasonable.

1) Gee, you don't seem to be handling rejection very well either. Its kinda made you real indignant, hasn't it? You'll just have to learn to handle those trying times when you get something wrong(even though you'll never admit that you were actually wrong).

2) I get it. Your interpretation of a rule that everyone else has agreed has a gray area is the correct interpretation. And the NFHS rules committee agrees with your interpretation. Not that we'd ever doubt that, but could you come up with something that's maybe a little more definitive than your own personal opinion? Maybe a letter or e-mail from the FED rules committee saying never doubt NevadaRef?

[NewNCref]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Let me be clear: In the OP, I believe that the current NFHS rules are terrible and should be changed.

I don't know about terrible, but I definitely think there needs to be clarification about this (I think a casebook play would be exactly what we need).

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I believe that the current NFHS rules call for the official to advance the ball for the team, if the AP arrow favors them.

Okay, I'm still with you.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I won't do that.

WOAH....you admit what the rules are regarding this, but refuse to enforce them

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I will fudge this one and say that it falls under an interrupted game, then use 4-36 (POI).

And of course, while we're not going to enforce the correct rule, let's improperly apply another


Your post is completely absurd. What if I said, "The penalty for slapping the backboard (while not attempting to block a shot) is a technical foul. I won't do that. I'll just call it basket interference"? That's absurd! While I may believe that's what the penalty should be, I don't do it.

Maybe we should just all ask Nevada what he thinks the proper rule for everything should be.

[Nevadaref]

If you are going to get your old butt involved in a discussion between Dan and I, then the least that you could do is properly and fully quote me. Don't cut what I wrote without making note of that. Putting ellipsis is a proper indicator.

Furthermore, you could try to follow the point under debate.

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

...
2) I get it. Your interpretation of a rule that everyone else has agreed has a gray area is the correct interpretation. ...

Nope, I was referring to the "player or the court" wording at the end of 4-3-3 that Dan and I have been in disagreement over, not that my opinion is definitive regarding any gray area involving how to properly handle a timing error of the type presented in the OP.

So if you can't follow the conversation, hang up the phone.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by NewNCref

And of course, while we're not going to enforce the correct rule, let's improperly apply another


Your post is completely absurd. What if I said, "The penalty for slapping the backboard (while not attempting to block a shot) is a technical foul. I won't do that. I'll just call it basket interference"? That's absurd! While I may believe that's what the penalty should be, I don't do it.

Maybe we should just all ask Nevada what he thinks the proper rule for everything should be.

Apples and Oranges, NC. In the timing situation, neither team has committed an infraction. In your slapping the backboard example someone has infringed the rules. I would properly punish that, but in the timing situation I am not advocating failing to properly punish a player or team by skipping any penalty given in the rules. I am advocating NOT screwing them over because of something totally unfair and beyond their control. Even JR wouldn't go to AP arrow in this situation, but if you wish to do so and take the police escort out of the gym, be my guest. I'm just not going down that path with you.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

If you are going to get your old butt involved in a discussion between Dan and I, then the least that you could do is properly and fully quote me.

My "old butt"? Gollygee, whatever happened to the guy that got his panties in a bunch about name calling and degrading? Tsk, tsk. Be an adult, Nevada.

I agree with Dan that you're the Emperor of Caca. Trying to weasel the rules around to say that an AP arrow would be the correct call is ludicrous, but typical of your mindset.

[JoeTheRef]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Because there are two completely different rules that would come into play. If the ball went OOB untouched, 9-2-2 is the governing rule and the penalty for section 2 on page 56 says that the throw-in goes back to the original spot. If the official sounds the whistle to stop the game for a clock problem, the we need to use the rule that governs that stoppage. That rule says to go to the location of the ball, so 4-3-3 must be consulted and that will determine the placement of the ensuing throw-in.

I keep seeing your reference to 4-3-3. Do you not know that this rule is to set the direction of the INITIAL ARROW, that would be the setting the arrow at the beginning of the game or the beginning of OT. This has nothing to do with the OP. Furthermore, the original post states that after coming out of TO after a made basket, Team A rolls the ball down the court...... The official blew the whistle before the throw-in ENDED, the ball is dead, whether the whistle was inadvertent or to correct the clock, the throw-in after a made basket did not end, nor was there a violation on the throw-in team, so you give the ball back to the Team A, back at the endline (and he can run the endline), and let's play.

[JoeTheRef]

I must be missing something, or not reading everything. The majority of us would put the time back on the clock and the ball back in play at the endline. To put the ball in play where the ball was, in my opinion wouldn't work for me, simply because the throw-in never ended, so how can I change the location of the throw-in? But to try and justify by any rule to give the ball back to Team B in this situation is absurd.

In the caseplay 7.5.4 sit. D.. Official inadverntely blows the whistle while Team A's successful try is airborne.. Ruling. Even though by rule there is no team control during this dead ball period, the ball would be given to TEam B for a throw-in anywhere along the endline. Team B would have clearly received the ball had the official not acidentally sound his/her whistle.

Yes, I know that caseplay is talking about an IW, but the intent of the ruling by the FED in that situation could and should be applied in this situation. So in the OP, Team A would not or could not lose possession because of the idiot timekeeper starting the clock when it shouldn't have started, period.

[26 Year Gap]

I heard back from my interpreter and will post his response here. Some will agree and some will disagree. And, no, firing the clock operator on the spot was not part of the response.

interesting play and connects with the point I was attempting to make at the mid-season meetings about being aware of the clock in crucial situations...there are many different situations that occur and not a lot of guidance in the rule book, which then allows Rule 2-3 (Referee's Authority) to take over...that rule along with experience, rule knowledge and common sense will hopefully provide for a ruling that is FAIR...I would say in the situation presented, that the ball should be inbounded at the spot closest to where the ball was when the whistle was blown i.e. near the division line, and that the clock should be reset to the original time i.e. 32.3(I think it was)...

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by JoeTheRef

I must be missing something, or not reading everything. The majority of us would put the time back on the clock and the ball back in play at the endline. To put the ball in play where the ball was, in my opinion wouldn't work for me, simply because the throw-in never ended, so how can I change the location of the throw-in? But to try and justify by any rule to give the ball back to Team B in this situation is absurd.

Yeah, most of us would kill the play, fix the clock & restart the throw-in. Simple enough, although it does get tricky if you kill the play after the touch but before team control.

Some of us would prefer to dream up alternate-universe interpretations and hand them down from the mountain top carved onto tablets. :shrug:

[SoInZebra]

I didn't fire the time keeper......just made him buy a round after the game. Thanks all for your thoughts.

[etruland]

That's not an IW. WE have a timing mistake. Since we must put time back on, put ball back to throw in spot.

[NewNCref]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I am advocating NOT screwing them over because of something totally unfair and beyond their control.

Nevada, I'm not arguing about whether they're getting "screwed over", but if the rules say to do something, I feel like that's what needs to be done. Does it suck? Yeah, probably, but that's not my judgement to make.

I'm also not advocating going to the AP, because it's not an inadvertent whistle.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by etruland

That's not an IW. WE have a timing mistake. Since we must put time back on, put ball back to throw in spot.

Hey Earl. Welcome to the forum!!

I agree that it's technically not an inadvertent whistle. But why does putting time back on the clock mean that we must go back to the original throw-in spot? I don't get the connection between those two things.