Throw in kick ball
 

After wading through 15 pages which had long since dissolved into a you know who ridiculousness festival, I thought a question about the original issue might be worth a fresh start. Trail official hands A1 the ball for a throw-in at the end line. He throws a long pass which B1 kicks at the division line. C blows his whistle and signals the violation at the same time, or yes, maybe even a fraction before the T chops the clock. We're not going to take any time off for this, are we?

The timer should have started and stopped the clock under FED rules. However, you can't take any time off unless you know exactly how much time to take off. You don't know that in this case, so you can't change the time.

Team A gets the ball for a spot throw-in at the closest OOB spot to B1's kick. If it was an AP throw-in, A keeps the arrow.

The rules on starting/stopping the clock are 5-9-4&1. The applicable rules re: a timing mistake are 5-10-1&2. The OOB spot for the violation is rule 7-5-2. The rules for A keeping the arrow are new 4-42-5 and 6-4-4.

Now lock it up quick! Before it gets all *%$#@#$%^

Agree on all five counts.

Now lock 'er down.

My point was that if 2 different officials made the two different calls, (start clock on touch, stop clock for violation) it is easy to realize that the 2 calls do happen at the same time. It was stated that we cannot take time off because we do not know how much to take. In fact we do know how much to take, none, because the start and the stop, by rule, take place at the same time. Furthermore, it should not be any more difficult to accept this situation, even if only one official is involved. The official simply keeps his hand up and whistles the violation and does not chop the clock. I'm sure that we all have seen this call made, but I personally could not say whether any time ran off the clock or not. What I do know is that I have seen B1 jump up and swat the inbounds pass and the ball hits the wall behind A1 and the clock never starts. Certainly no adjustment could be made here because of the tiny fraction of a second involved. So, having recognized all that, can we not recognize that the kick/touch.......clock start/clock stop things are one and that no time should run off? As written, 5-8-1 & 5-9-4 are contradictory. The same act is supposed to start the clock and stop the clock. To whom should Nevada write a letter about this?

There's no contradiction. As JR said, the clock should have stopped and started. If it did, fine. If it didn't, no adjustment can be made as we don't have definite knowledge. Personally, I don't see why that's so difficult.

The difficult part is whether it truly should stop and start or should not start at all. If the official signals for the clock to start, then quickly realizes that the initial touch was a violation and blows the whistle, I agree that whatever small amount of time runs off is something we might have to live with as the rule is written now. But, what if the official never signals the start, and the clock starts anyway. Picture an end of game situation. .5 is on the clock. The throw-in is kicked and the buzzer sounds. The official never chopped the clock, but kept his hand up and whistled the violation. We have definite knowledge that no time elapsed between the touch the kick, as they were one and the same. So, we should put the .5 back on the clock and do it again, should we not?

What definite knowledge do you have and where did you get it from?:confused:

What reason(s) do you have to ignore the specific language of R5-9-4 that says that the clock starts on a throw-in when the ball touches or is touched by a player on the court.

Iow, cite some actual rules that will back up your contentions.

Btw, if the official doesn't start the clock, the timer can start it instead under R5-9-1. If the timer did start it under 5-9-1, where is the timer's mistake needed to make a clock adjustment?

If the first touch is a kick, I know that took 0 time.


Not ignoring anything, just following 5-8-1c which says the clock stops on a violation.

Let's read 5-9-1: After time has been out, the clock shall be started when the official signals time-in. 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.

The official in this case signaled the violation and did not signal for the clock to start. He did not neglect to signal, but rather did not intend for the clock to start. If the timer starts the clock at the same time the official whistles a violation, I consider this a mistake, no matter how quickly he may stop it afterward.

Sorry, but none of that flies.

The official is supposed to start the clock under 5-9-4. If he fails to do so, the timer is authorized to start the clock under 5-9-1. If the timer does start the clock under 5-9-1, and also <b>stops</b> the clock as per 5-8-1(c), then there is nowayinhell there is a timing mistake. And if there <b>isn't</b> a timing mistake, you can't use 5-10.

You also can't guess as to how much time to put back on the clock <b>if</b> the timer had made a mistake.

Again, if you can find anything anywhere that will refute the <b>RULES</b> that I've cited, feel free to post them.

First, there's nothing in that post that proves there's any contradiction in the rules.

Second, the official erred. The rule requires the clock must start and stop on this play. So you're in error that no time should elapse. Time should lapse between the start and stop. The fact that an illegal act occurs means nothing form a timing standpoint.

Finally, if the timer starts/stops the clock by rule, then he has not erred. it makes no difference whether the official signals or not.

For the record, I think the rule should say the clock starts on a legal touch. But it doesn't, so why worry about it?

How is it required that the clock must start and stop? What if a foul occurs simultaneously with the first touch? It doesn't have to start then, does it?

According to rule 5-9-1, it sureasheck does have to start. That's what we've been trying to tell you.

I agree with Tony about the wording, but until the FED changes it, we have to follow what they've written.

I agree with both of you about the wording, but there is nothing in the wording now that says the clock must start if the foul/violation occurs before or at the same time as the first touch.

I thought that the clock can't start until "the ball is legally touched inbounds". A kicked ball is not a legal touch therefore no time should come off the clock right?

It would be the same as a player stealing the tap at the start of the game. if time comes off the clock you put 8:00 back on the clock before the inbounding of the ball?