New Rule

[Hartsy]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

There is one other aspect of this rule to consider--time. I am still waiting to see if the timing rules will be changed to make it that the game clock will not start on an illegal touching, but only when the ball is "legally" touched inbounds.

This could certainly come into play late in the game. For example, let's say that there is only 1.5 seconds remaining in the game with Team B leading by 1. Team A has a throw-in, whether the throw-in is an AP throw-in or not makes no difference. It would actually be productive for Team B to kick the ball on the throw-in pass, if that is the only way that they can make a defensive play as under last season's rules the clock should start per 5-9-4 and then stop upon the sounding of the whistle from the official for the violation.

Sadly Team B would benefit from an illegal action is such a situation. I hope that the NFHS will also add the word "legally" to 5-9-3&4 as it already appears in 5-9-2.

(BTW under NCAA rules the clock starts upon a "legal" touching.)

Hmmm. I don't have my rules handy, but my instinct is to say that the clock would not start. Doesn't it start on an in-bounds pass when legally touched? On a kick or punch, as someone mentioned before, there is no legal touching.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by Hartsy

Hmmm. I don't have my rules handy, but my instinct is to say that the clock would not start. Doesn't it start on an in-bounds pass when legally touched? On a kick or punch, as someone mentioned before, there is no legal touching.

No. That's what he's saying. The rule states the clock starts when the ball is touched, not "legally touched."

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

No. That's what he's saying. The rule states the clock starts when the ball is touched, not "legally touched."

But you have a dead ball immediately, literally at the same moment of the touching. I don't think it's too much of a stretch with the current rules to say the clock should not start.

edited: I just joined the 4040 club. Me and Barry Bonds.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I don't think it's too much of a stretch with the current rules to say the clock should not start.

Unfortunately, it is a stretch because the current rules language does not support that stance. The rules say...start the clock when it is touched by or touches a player on the court....then stop the clock on the official's signal(whistle).

The problem is(and will remain) how does the timer tell if the touching on the throw-in is legal or not? Until the official actually blows the whistle and calls the violation, the timer has to assume that it is a legal touch. If the timer does wait to make sure that the touching is legal, won't the clock really then be starting late?

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Unfortunately, it is a stretch because the current rules language does not support that stance. The rules say...start the clock when it is touched by or touches a player on the court....then stop the clock on the official's signal(whistle).

Now, maybe I'm joining Adam in a windmill-chasing excursion, but I'm leaning towards agreeing that the illegal touch caused the ball to become dead immediately, therefore the clock should not have started. If I remember right, one of the rules fundamentals is "The official's whistle doesn't cause the ball to become dead; it is already dead." Therefore, using that logic, if I know the ball is dead, and I'm a little slow in blowing the whistle to stop the clock, I have definite knowledge where the clock should be in this instance, and will put whatever time ran off back on. With the new AP rule, we now know the throw-in has not been completed. If the throw-in isn't completed, we have definite knowledge that no time should have come off the clock. Therefore, we can adjust the clock using that definite knowledge, correct?

An extreme example, perhaps, but what if, with 3 sec. left in a quarter/half/game, a ball goes OOB, but I end up having a coughing spell and can't blow the whistle, and the horn goes off. Are you saying, since there was no whistle, the quarter/half/game is over, even though we all know the ball went OOB with 3 sec. left?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Now, maybe I'm joining Adam in a windmill-chasing excursion, but I'm leaning towards agreeing that the illegal touch caused the ball to become dead immediately, therefore the clock should not have started. If I remember right, one of the rules fundamentals is "The official's whistle doesn't cause the ball to become dead; it is already dead."

Try remembering rule 5-9-4 instead. You're treating it as if it doesn't exist.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Try remembering rule 5-9-4 instead. You're treating it as if it doesn't exist.

I'm not treating it as if it doesn't exist, I'm not sure it applies over and above the other issues I mentioned.

We now know the kicking violation means the throw-in is not completed. This settles the past arguments over whether the "touch" happens before the violation. We now know the violation happens first, and the ball is dead before the throw-in is completed. This gives me definite information that the clock should not have started, and allows me to apply 5-10-1. The timer may not know whether the touch is legal or not, and properly started it, but I can use my definite knowledge to correct it and put the time back on.

[Hartsy]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Unfortunately, it is a stretch because the current rules language does not support that stance. The rules say...start the clock when it is touched by or touches a player on the court....then stop the clock on the official's signal(whistle).

The problem is (and will remain) how does the timer tell if the touching on the throw-in is legal or not? Until the official actually blows the whistle and calls the violation, the timer has to assume that it is a legal touch. If the timer does wait to make sure that the touching is legal, won't the clock really then be starting late?

The timer should be watching the official for the "chop", not watching to see when the ball is touched. Are we supposed to start the clock on the kick, whistle it dead, and give the stop clock signal all at the same time?

Surely this has been dealt with in a case play somewhere.

P.S. - This should go to a new thread.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Hartsy

The timer should be watching the official for the "chop", not watching to see when the ball is touched. Are we supposed to start the clock on the kick, whistle it dead, and give the stop clock signal all at the same time?

Surely this has been dealt with in a case play somewhere.

It's dealt with under NFHS rule 5-9-4 very explicitly. You start the clock on the "touch". If you then deem that "touch" a violation, you stop the clock. That's rule 5-8-1(c).

It's not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing with any concept. You work with what you have. What we currently have is those two rules along with the explicit language contained in those rules.

Again, if you do change the rule so that it reads a "legal" touch, how does the timer now know whether that touch is legal or not, and when to start the clock? Whether the touch was "legal" or not can only be decided by the official, not the timer. If the timer waits to see that the official did NOT blow the whistle for a kicking violation, then the timer is going to be late starting the clock.

[Hartsy]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

It's dealt with under NFHS rule 5-9-4 very explicitly. You start the clock on the "touch". If you then deem that "touch" a violation, you stop the clock. That's rule 5-8-1(c).

It's not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing with any concept. You work with what you have. What we currently have is those two rules along with the explicit language contained in those rules.

Again, if you do change the rule so that it reads a "legal" touch, how does the timer now know whether that touch is legal or not, and when to start the clock? Whether the touch was "legal" or not can only be decided by the official, not the timer. If the timer waits to see that the official did NOT blow the whistle for a kicking violation, then the timer is going to be late starting the clock.

OK. If I agree that starting the clock on ANY touch is the rule, and the rule is apparently stated that way, then we start the clock on the touch/kick with a "chop" signal, then blow the whistle and raise an open hand to stop the clock. I'd rather the rule be written to just keep the open hand raised and blow the whistle on the kick, thus no time elapsed.

And I'll say again, the timer should be watching the officials signal and not the ball for when to start the clock. I will even remind them of this in cases like this one. Ever see a clock start early because the timer thought the ball was tipped on throw in? or on down court throw in with the ball tipped at the line, but the clock didn't start until the home team caught the pass and hit an apparent game winner?