|
Long Time Lurker, First Time Poster
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 don't know if that is correct by the rules, but it sounds good to me.
|
There's no concensus on this play. Some will tell you to do what you did. Others will tell you to take the ball back to the endline. I know of no case play or interp that addresses it.
One question. After the TO, Team B didn't press. Why do you think that he's suddenly going to press now? And more importantly, why would you care? That's not our concern. Welcome to the forum. |
I would say it should go back to the endline. My initial thought to back this up is if the ball goes OOB without being touched on a throw-in, it goes back to the spot of the throw-in.
|
But that would be on an offensive throwin violation. This isn't that. The live ball had reached the division line without being touched. The offense had legally advanced the ball that far, and should have had the full 32.3 seconds from that point.
Like BktBallRef says, it fits outside the scope of things the Fed tells us how to fix. This one takes a little thinking outside the box. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
This is an inadvertent whistle during a throw-in. The POI is a throw-in to the team who is making the throw-in. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Take a look at 4-36-2 (POI rule) and 4-42-5. |
Quote:
|
Interesting point that it is not an official's "accidental whistle". It's definitely on purpose to correct the timing mistake. However, without any other rule to go by, I would continue using the POI rule and give the throw-in to the team that had just made the throw-in.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
So here, we have a stoppage during a throw-in, but not when the thrower is holding the ball. So what does the rule tell us to do? It doesn't!! :) If there were team control, then you'd put it in play at the spot closest to the location of the ball (4-36-2a). But, as we all know, there's no team control during the throw-in. |
Quote:
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.:p |
NCRef-
I thought about doing that - in the locker room after the game. I went with the first instinct which was to kill the play and fix the clock. |
Quote:
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 <b>without</b> using any time <b>at all</b> to do so. That's completely unfair to the defense imo. |
Quote:
The ideal situation is to have Diebler ref. That way he can do the book and the clock all at the same time. |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
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). |
Quote:
Thanks. |
Easy then, let him touch it, start a count, and blow the whistle after a few seconds if he's not being closely guarded.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Either way you look at it, go back and start over. |
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. |
Bottom line for me: it's not covered explicitly in the rules or case play; do what's right.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
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. |
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. |
Quote:
What would you do again? |
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. |
Quote:
Hope I'm not clear as mud. :rolleyes: :o |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
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. |
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. |
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.
|
Quote:
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 <STRIKE>neither team is in control and</STRIKE> 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. :) |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Now aren't you the guy who always says to enforce the rules AS WRITTEN? :D |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Again, ludicrous. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
You're gonna have to help me out here. Extra credit if you can quote a real rule. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Nice. I prefer to interpret it as "or". It's not hard. |
Quote:
If you have a double foul in the key after the throw-in has been released but before it is touched(like the current situation), where is the POI? |
Quote:
Sorry that you don't agree, but you are going to be in the minority on that one. |
Quote:
Where in the original post is there a foul of any type? |
Quote:
Would the throw-in spot be any different in the 2 scenarios? (Mine or the original) |
Quote:
Why? -- because a double foul DURING a throw-in is clearly one of the items listed in 4-36-1 that invokes the POI rule. Ball location doesn't matter if the double foul happened DURING the throw-in because 4-36-2b doesn't say to go to the location of the ball, only 4-36-2a does. For part b the POI is the throw-in. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
What else can we do? How about we take a look at the definition of when a throw-in ends??? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
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? |
Quote:
One whistle is for a foul. The other is to fix a clock error. Completely different scenarios. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
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 <b>definitive</b> than your own personal <b>opinion</b>? Maybe a letter or e-mail from the FED rules committee saying never doubt NevadaRef? |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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. |
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. Quote:
So if you can't follow the conversation, hang up the phone. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
|
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. |
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)... |
Quote:
Some of us would prefer to dream up alternate-universe interpretations and hand them down from the mountain top carved onto tablets. :shrug: |
I didn't fire the time keeper......just made him buy a round after the game. Thanks all for your thoughts.
|
Not an IW
That's not an IW. WE have a timing mistake. Since we must put time back on, put ball back to throw in spot. :cool:
|
Quote:
I'm also not advocating going to the AP, because it's not an inadvertent whistle. |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
On a throw-in, if the ball bounces in the frontcourt, has it attained front court status? No. A player in the backcourt may be the 1st to touch it after it touches the floor in the frontcourt. The same applies to this situation. |
Quote:
"Official's timeout" is announcer-speak. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
A ball which is in contact with a player or with the court is in the frontcourt if neither the ball nor the player is touching the backcourt. Q.E.D. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
Even though the stoppage occurred during a throw-in, the POI rule does not apply because the reason for the stoppage is NOT one of those listed in 4-36-1. We agree that this is not an accidental whistle, right? It is unfortunate, but I believe that the rule which governs this play is 6-4-3e. That describes the conditions under which the ball became dead. That rule says to use the AP arrow at the location of the ball. See the problem? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
I'm sure that JR will have some choice words for him about that decision. |
rule 5 section 10 art 2
With Due respect to rules interpreters and those who have posted thus far IMHO
This is NOT an INADVERTANT WHISTLE it IS a TIMERS MISTAKE that is why you are blowing the whistle so you can find what to do, But because there is a rule involved you can not no mater how badly covered use elasticity to fill in the gaps or your feelings or personal opinions. I think this is how you have to go about resetting play. 1) now if the ball was not touched the clock is restet to 32.2 and the ball is inbounded where it was when the ball was touched and the whistle blew. the ball is where it was when the whistle blew. no time ran off the clock since it was not touched 2) if the ball was touched by the inbounding team The clock is reset at something less than 32.2 (Ref knowledge) and the ball is inbounded where it was when the whistle blew. the ball is where it was when the whistle blew. and time came off the clock because it was touched 3) if the ball was intercepted by the defending team then the whisle blows The clock is reset at something less than 32.2 and the ball is inbounded where it was when the whistle blew. the ball is where it was when the whistle blew. and time came off the clock because it was touched. and in these resets there are no advantages gained because things are at best POI when the whistle blew. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Relavant case that no one has mentioned....(I don't have my books with me so someone else can look up the reference).
Violation by B. Ref mistakenly gives ball to B for the throwin. The untouched ball is rolling down the court when the ref realizes the error and blows the whistle. The case play says that until the throwin is touched, the mistake can be corrected....that A will get the ball. WHY? There is rules justification for it and the same rule applies here. Because the ball became dead and a timeout, goal or infraction of the rules was involved (it was what dictated that there would be a throwin to begin with). And until that throwin ends or there is a violation or foul, team A has a throwin due them. A will continue to be due that throwin...and at the original spot since it is still part of the penalty for the infraction that had occured or part of the result of a team scoring a goal. So, when the ball becomes dead as it is rolling down the floor on the throwin, the throwing team will get the ball at the original spot. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
you blew the whistle to correct a timers mistake under under scoring and timing regulations - section 10 - article 2 (I believe do not have NFHS book with me)you stop the clock and then either reset or take time off the clock and give the ball back where it was. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Ludicrous, ain't it? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
In fact, I think that your example is an excellent one, and I will likely use it to attempt to get the rules committee to alter 4-36-1. A stoppage to correct a timing error needs to be included in that list. That would fix things. Unfortunately, the way things are now, neither you nor any other official can point to a rule other than 6-4-3e that covers the stoppage in this situation. You have conveniently said that you don't think that using the AP arrow and possibly giving the ball back to Team B is right, but you have not cited a rule that says to do anything else. Please be specific, if you think that there is one. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Now what I put in red certainly seems like you are applying the POI rule. What rule permits you to "give the ball back where it was"? You say to do this, but you never say why or what rules support you would have for doing so. Quote:
|
Quote:
I never said that it was a poor idea for you to consult someone that you believe is more knowledgable for help. I did have an issue with this person that you went to not bothering to give you anything in the current rules that would cover the situation about which you inquired. Instead your rules person just said to use 2-3 and make up what to do. I don't believe that is helpful at all. You could have done that without consulting him. So my criticism was not of you, but of your state rules interpreter. If my interpreter were to write something to me that was as weak and unhelpful as yours did, I would criticize him too. |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:54am. |