New Rule

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Old School

I gonna buy me one of those there intelligent keyboards. You know, the kinds that automatically corrects typing mistakes on the fly..

Yeah, get one of them Old School interlectual keyboards.......

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by Old School

Damn keyboard, you know, one of these days, when I get enough money from all the D1 games I wish I could work. I gonna buy me one of those there intelligent keyboards. You know, the kinds that automatically corrects typing mistakes on the fly..

Why not just take out a home equity loan and get the one that automatically won't type anything that goes against the rules, that evaluates your logic, and that corrects your grammar and syntax, too? It's only a few hundred thousand more! And you'd avoid all the insults and hassles we give you!

[Old School]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

Why not just take out a home equity loan and get the one that automatically won't type anything that goes against the rules, that evaluates your logic, and that corrects your grammar and syntax, too? It's only a few hundred thousand more! And you'd avoid all the insults and hassles we give you!

That's a lot more games, might even have to start another DI Men's league at a different time of season to finesse that one.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Old School

The NBA addresses this, which is why i like reading all the codes. The clock must run for at least .003 tenths (not sure of exact #) of a second when starting and stopping. And before you go there, you can't call a violation on a dead ball.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

Why not just take out a home equity loan and get the one that automatically won't type anything that goes against the rules, that evaluates your logic, and that corrects your grammar and syntax, too? It's only a few hundred thousand more! And you'd avoid all the insults and hassles we give you!

Most banks won't give you a loan against a 1981 Buick.

[Boiler14]

If there are 3.0 seconds left in this scenario I think you either reset the clock to 3.0 or (gulp) 2.7.

I'm resetting it to 3.0 because I never chopped time to begin the clock. Therefore, there is a timing error in my opinion.

I apologize that I understand the logic that 3 tenths has to run off the clock. I just don't think that is the right in this situation.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Boiler14

If there are 3.0 seconds left in this scenario I think you either reset the clock to 3.0 or (gulp) 2.7.

I'm resetting it to 3.0 because I never chopped time to begin the clock. Therefore, there is a timing error in my opinion.

I apologize that I understand the logic that 3 tenths has to run off the clock. I just don't think that is the right in this situation.

The three tenths rule is ONLY a rule in the NBA. There is no such rule for NFHS games.

At the moment, the proper timing for a play in which a defender kicks an inbounds pass if for the timer to start the clock on the chop by the official (or on the touch if the official fails to chop per 5-9-1) and then quickly stop the clock upon hearing the whistle for the kicking violation.

So how much time should come off for this situation in an NFHS game? However long it takes the timer to turn the clock on and then off when responding to the officials whistle. Under the current NFHS rules that amount is NOT zero seconds.

This is why my first post on this stated that I hope that the NFHS amends its rule to match the NCAA and then the correct answer will be zero seconds.

[dblref]

Originally Posted by Old School

Damn keyboard, you know, one of these days, when I get enough money from all the D1 games I wish I could work. I gonna buy me one of those there intelligent keyboards. You know, the kinds that automatically corrects typing mistakes on the fly..

I think you should buy one of "those there" intelligent keyboards. Maybe the keyboard will then automatically correct you everytime you mis-state a rule. Of course, that will be a full time job for the keyboard.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

The three tenths rule is ONLY a rule in the NBA. There is no such rule for NFHS games.

I seem to recall some NCAA rule / AR that deals with this as well -- there's no minimum, but the official is supposed to be sure the clock started and then stopped.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

1) Yup, I'm saying that the current NFHS rules language in R5-9-1&4 explicitly directs the timer to start the clock on the ball touching or being touched by a player on the court. There is no differentiation made, rules-wise, between legal and illegal touching.

Right, I still agree with your wording on 5-9-4. But 5-9-1 does not make that statement; it says specifically to start the clock on the official's signal. Also, it says specifically, "If the official neglects to signal, the timer is authorized to start the clock as per rule, unless an official specifically signals continued time-out". So, if I'm standing there waiting to chop in the clock, see the kick, blow my whistle, and never chop in time, why wouldn't that be a timer's mistake for starting the clock without receiving the official's signal? I didn't neglect to signal; I purposely didn't signal, because time shouldn't have started.

So, what is the intent and purpose of 5-9-4? My feeling it is to allow the timer to start the clock when the official neglects to properly start it (see 5-9-1), usually on the routine throw-ins. Granted, I don't have any inside information as to what's inside the committee's heads, but to me that makes the most sense for having that wording in there. The final authority on whether the clock should start or stop is still in the hands of the officials, correct?

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

2) You can't correct it because there was NO timing mistake made, as per 5-10-1. Because of that, you can't use 5-10-2 because the clock WAS started properly under 5-10-1.

Well, see above. I now have two possible timer's mistakes - first, if you do argue the clock was properly started, I argue the clock wasn't properly stopped. This is because we now know the kick now happens before the throw-in ends, so if the timer started it properly per your argument using 5-9-4, I argue it wasn't stopped immediately, with no time coming off, and can correct the time per 5-10-1. The second mistake is the fact the timer started the clock without the official signal. The official didn't neglect to start the clock, but did "specifically signal continued time-out".

Now, I suppose there's the chance that the official did see the touch, start to chop in time, realize it was a kick and bring their hand back up immediately while blowing the whistle. That would eliminate one of my arguments. But I still maintain the clock wasn't stopped immediately, because I have definite knowledge the throw-in was not completed, and can correct the time based on that specific knowledge.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

1) So, if I'm standing there waiting to chop in the clock, see the kick, blow my whistle, and never chop in time, why wouldn't that be a timer's mistake for starting the clock without receiving the official's signal? I didn't neglect to signal; I purposely didn't signal, because time shouldn't have started.

2) So, what is the intent and purpose of 5-9-4?

3) Well, see above. I now have two possible timer's mistakes - first, if you do argue the clock was properly started, I argue the clock wasn't properly stopped.

4) But I still maintain the clock wasn't stopped immediately, because I have definite knowledge the throw-in was not completed, and can correct the time based on that specific knowledge.

1) I hate to have to be the one to break this to you, but according to the rules the clock should have started. Rules 5-9-1&4 to be exact. The timer started the clock according to the rules. You didn't.

2) What difference does it make what the purpose and intent of the rule is? All that really matters is that you call the play BY the rule. And the rule says that you start the clock on a throw-in when the ball touches or is touched by a player on the court. You are supposed to signal time in on that touch, as per 5-9-4. When you fail to do as instructed by rule, the timer is now authorized to start the clock on his own. Don't blame the timer for your screw-up. The timer did not commit a mistake.

3) You can argue it if you want, but I still don't see you citing any rules to back up your argument. The official is supposed to stop the clock because of the violation. The timer isn't authorized to stop the clock until you signal him to do so.

4) Hooray for you and your definite knowledge. I can't begin to tell you how happy I am for you. Now.......whatinthehell does that have to do with starting and stopping the clock on a throw-in as per the current written rules? There's nothing anywhere in the rules that I know of that can negate the specific language of R5-9-1&4. You can't put time back on the clock when there was NO timer's mistake made and the clock started and stopped by the existing rules.

[CoachP]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

1) I hate to have to be the one to break this to you, but according to the rules the clock should have started. Rules 5-9-1&4 to be exact. The timer started the clock according to the rules. You didn't.

2) What difference does it make what the purpose and intent of the rule is? All that really matters is that you call the play BY the rule. And the rule says that you start the clock on a throw-in when the ball touches or is touched by a player on the court. You are supposed to signal time in on that touch, as per 5-9-4. When you fail to do as instructed by rule, the timer is now authorized to start the clock on his own. Don't blame the timer for your screw-up. The timer did not commit a mistake.

3) You can argue it if you want, but I still don't see you citing any rules to back up your argument. The official is supposed to stop the clock because of the violation. The timer isn't authorized to stop the clock until you signal him to do so.

4) Hooray for you and your definite knowledge. I can't begin to tell you how happy I am for you. Now.......whatinthehell does that have to do with starting and stopping the clock on a throw-in as per the current written rules? There's nothing anywhere in the rules that I know of that can negate the specific language of R5-9-1&4. You can't put time back on the clock when there was NO timer's mistake made and the clock started and stopped by the existing rules.

I agree with JR. The rule is clear as written.

It (the kick) is a violation, not when the timer sees it but when the official calls it. Time can elapse from when it happens to when the whistle blows. Timers should not play referee with regards to the clock.

Just like a travel. The travel happens, the official recognizes, blows whistle, timer hears, timer stops clock. A whole second or more may have elapsed from when the violation actually occured and when the timer actually stopped the clock. Now, are we gonna decide to put 3 tenths, 7 tenths, etc for every violation, foul, etc., too and call it a timer error? No.

But, allbeit those are running clock examples and this discussion revolves around a stopped clock throw-in during a 1 point game with 3 seconds left in the 4th. At that point, a little communication between the timer and official would be beneficial, considering the rule as written.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

1) I hate to have to be the one to break this to you, but according to the rules the clock should have started. Rules 5-9-1&4 to be exact. The timer started the clock according to the rules. You didn't.

You keep bringing up 5-9-1, and according to 5-9-1, the timer did not start the clock according to the rule. The rule states the timer is to start the clock on my signal, and they didn't. By rule, I also stopped the clock immediately upon the violation: 5-8-1(c). I followed the rule; they didn't stop the clock immediately, so there's the mistake.

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

2) What difference does it make what the purpose and intent of the rule is?

You're kidding, right?

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

4) Hooray for you and your definite knowledge. I can't begin to tell you how happy I am for you.

Good, now we're getting somewhere...

Look, I keep saying I understand the point you're making about 5-9-4, and the difference between that wording and the new ruling. I hope they fix that with one simple little word addition when the books come out.

Ok, I'm going to try to improve on my interlect over lunch.

[Old School]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

You can't put time back on the clock when there was NO timer's mistake made and the clock started and stopped by the existing rules.

That would be incorrect! You can always put time back on the clock provided you have definite knowledge, which makes this argument kind of moot. If it's .03 seconds on the clock and the ball was kicked on the APTI, put .01 seconds back on the clock and play it out. If the ball is kicked again, the game is over.

I'm beginning to see the issue here. It's possible to end the game under the kickball violation. Doesn't sound right but then again, allowing Team A to retain the AP if B kicks the ball is not right either. Before we go too far here, it's unlikely that if a team is down one point and inbounding the ball that it will be a bounce pass with .01 seconds left. Knowing the players can't catch and shoot with .01, it has to be a tap so the pass will be up top.

Just my 2 cents, continue on with your debate.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Old School

That would be incorrect! You can always put time back on the clock provided you have definite knowledge, which makes this argument kind of moot.

Here's the part you're forgetting, ignoring, or just don't know. You have to have definite knowledge of a timer's error. Without a timer's error, there is no definite knowledge to have.