New Rule

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

1) The problem still is with the NFHS rules language imo. You can't correct timing unless there actually was a timing mistake made. And according to the current FED language, there wasn't a timing mistake made.

But what's the intent of 5-9-4? I would've thought it was to allow the timer to start the clock during the relatively mundane throw-ins that happen all the time, where the official just neglects to chop time in. Otherwise, the timer uses 5-9-1, where the clock is started when the official signals time in. In our kicked ball play, if the official never signaled time in, and the clock starts anyway, then wouldn't this be a timer's mistake, per 5-9-1?

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

2) You're right, it isn't a timer's mistake. However, it is a situation that is still covered under the language of NFHS rule 5-10-2--i.e. the clock wasn't stopped properly and you had specific knowledge about it....so you can correct it. Note though that you can't use this rule to back up your argument also because on the throw-in being discussed, the clock did start properly.

Why can't I use it? If the clock should be stopped the instant of the kick, which happens at the same instant of the touching (and starting of the clock), and we have definite knowledge of that fact, then why can't we make that correction? That's been my point; perhaps the timer started the clock on the touch, not knowing whether it's a legal touch, but I'm coming in and saying I have definite knowledge it wasn't stopped properly (the instant it was touched).

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

"Taurus excreta cerebrum vincit."

Are you saying you think some models of Fords are pieces of crap?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Are you saying you think some models of Fords are pieces of crap?

"vescere bracis meis"!

Got that from the Simpsons Movie....or suthin' like that.......

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

1) But what's the intent of 5-9-4? I would've thought it was to allow the timer to start the clock during the relatively mundane throw-ins that happen all the time, where the official just neglects to chop 2) time in. Otherwise, the timer uses 5-9-1, where the clock is started when the official signals time in. In our kicked ball play, if the official never signaled time in, and the clock starts anyway, then wouldn't this be a timer's mistake, per 5-9-1?

2) Why can't I use it? If the clock should be stopped the instant of the kick, which happens at the same instant of the touching (and starting of the clock), and we have definite knowledge of that fact, then why can't we make that correction? That's been my point; perhaps the timer started the clock on the touch, not knowing whether it's a legal touch, but I'm coming in and saying I have definite knowledge it wasn't stopped properly (the instant it was touched).

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.

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.

[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.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

1)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.

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

1) But you didn't signal to start the clock, as you were supposed to do under 5-9-4. And when you screwed up by failing to signal "time in" by tule, the timer is authorized to start the clock anyway under 9-5-1. And after the timer does properly start the clock by rule, there now is NO timing mistake to correct under 5-10-1&2. Just follow the bouncing ball.

2) Didn't work. Shoulda tried something easier....like walking on water.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

1) But you didn't signal to start the clock, as you were supposed to do under 5-9-4. And when you screwed up by failing to signal "time in" by tule, the timer is authorized to start the clock anyway under 9-5-1. And after the timer does properly start the clock by rule, there now is NO timing mistake to correct under 5-10-1&2. Just follow the bouncing ball.

You keep looking at the wrong bouncing ball. I signaled for the clock to stop by keeping my hand in the air. I'm giving you the fact that clock (coulda, woulda, shoulda) started, but I'm saying I stopped the clock at the same time. If time runs off, I can correct for the failure to stop the clock.

Again, I know it's a slight stretch, but intent is a big part of figuring out the rules. If the intent of the new kicked ball interp. is to say any throw-in doesn't end on that violation, then I can't think of any situation where the clock should start even though the throw-in hasn't ended. Can you?

I hope they pick up one of them magic keyboards and get that word "legally" added to 5-9-4 by the time the books come out.

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

2) Didn't work. Shoulda tried something easier....like walking on water.

How do you think I got to 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.

[Old School]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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.

Wrong again. The timer mechanism can error, the lag time between the time it takes to start and stop the clock mechanism can be adjusted by the official if he has definite knowledge. If you know it's 5 seconds left and you have a kickball violation, the clock started and stop but now it's 2 seconds. Put 4 seconds back on the clock.

[M&M Guy]

And, Adam, there's this tidbit:

Originally Posted by Old School

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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

And, Adam, there's this tidbit:

I saw that, too.
And Rut, I'm not surprised.