at what point?

[Adam]

Jeff makes some good points. There are guys who've been officiating since 1990 that you really don't want to listen to. There are guys who've been officiating since 2003, however, that might have something important to say. Most people fall somewhere in between; much of what they say should at least be considered; even if you're going to discard it later.

The act of considering it and thinking about it will eventually make you a smarter official.

[Da Official]

Thanks everyone for your feedback!

Since I am fairly new to the site I haven't had a real chance to learn who to weed out in regards to discussions as I try to give everyone a fair shake.

Thanks to all those you take the time to share factual info as I have learned a lot from my few weeks on the boards!

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Da Official

Thanks everyone for your feedback!

Since I am fairly new to the site I haven't had a real chance to learn who to weed out in regards to discussions as I try to give everyone a fair shake.

Thanks to all those you take the time to share factual info as I have learned a lot from my few weeks on the boards!

It will not take long to figure it out. Also, just like the number of years isn't a reliable measure of an official ability, neither is the number of posts.

In fact, some of the best teachers of the game may not have been the best on-court officials. A good official might be a lot better at teaching and communicating what they know than a great official.

[Mark Dexter]

Originally Posted by Bad Zebra

Interesting scenario. In Florida, by state rule, there is a running clock once a 35 point differential is achieved (call it a Slaughter Rule if you like) so this sitch would apply to Fed governed contests here. The rule further states that the clock shall only be stopped for time-outs and Techs.
Thus, in the original sitch, I would proceed as follows:
1) we have an officials time out. (stop clock)
2) If the blood situation has been corrected, the time out has been concluded. Lets all set up for the free throw, if applicable, and
3)start the clock once the ball is at the disposal of the thrower.

Not sure if it's spelled out specifically anywhere for us, but that's my best guess how to handle it. Anyone have a better solution?

Until you hear back from the state - sounds good!

This is a problem that I have seen several times with running-clock rules. Often the restarting of the clock becomes debated (an argument I have had many times in reffing IM basketball).

[Old School]

Originally Posted by Bad Zebra

Interesting scenario. In Florida, by state rule, there is a running clock once a 35 point differential is achieved (call it a Slaughter Rule if you like) so this sitch would apply to Fed governed contests here. The rule further states that the clock shall only be stopped for time-outs and Techs.
Thus, in the original sitch, I would proceed as follows:
1) we have an officials time out. (stop clock)
2) If the blood situation has been corrected, the time out has been concluded. Lets all set up for the free throw, if applicable, and
3)start the clock once the ball is at the disposal of the thrower.

Not sure if it's spelled out specifically anywhere for us, but that's my best guess how to handle it. Anyone have a better solution?

Well, I try to do this if the players will let me. Most of the time they don't say anything. My clock operator also will start it back to try to keep things on time. However, the closer games and the better teams will stop the clock with a TO. In cases like this, I don't restart it until the ball becomes live again after the F/T's have been shot.

This is effective for technical fouls. If I'm working a team that is down in the game and they burn a TO after their player commits a TF. We will take the TO, then shoot the TF with the clocked stopped, and then start it aftrwards.

[Johnny Ringo]

Thanks all ... What I have done is convinced the league to come up with a rule on how they want to handle this typr of situation.

What I did was handled it just like I would a timeout. after the FTs and the ball ws inbounded - we started the clock. One team did not like it and objected ... but, there was no rule in place for this and I did what I thought was right.

[Adam]

Unless there's a rule in place, one team is always going to be upset.

[Back In The Saddle]

Even having a rule is no guarantee somebody won't be upset. Sounds like you did just fine Johnny.

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Unless there's a rule in place, one team is always going to be upset.

you misspelled. Sentence should read, "Even with a rule in place, one team..."

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

you misspelled. Sentence should read, "Even with a rule in place, one team..."

Copycat :P

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

Copycat :P

Yeah, but she did it using my own joke against me. She gets a higher grade.

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Yeah, but she did it using my own joke against me. She gets a higher grade.

I hate it when she wins!

[Stat-Man]

Originally Posted by Johnny Ringo

In a running clock game ... player gets hurt (we have blood) and the clock is stopped. At what point do you restart the clock - nothing in the local rules. The player is going to the line to shoot FTs

A) when the player is at the line and ready to shoot
B) once the ball becomes live
something else...

In my state, the running clock rule has a stipulation that the clock be stopped for any free throws in the last two minutes of the 4th quarter.

Extrapolating this for your situation, I'd be inclined to start the clock as I would after the last three throw.

(If it was a summer game, I'd ask to start the clock as soon as the first free throw was administered, mostly since most summer leagues are loosey-goosey when it comes to admin stuff )

Just my $0.02