Long Time Lurker, First Time Poster

[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.

[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.

[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.