"Why" and "How" are synonyms?

Lah me. ;)

Thank you.

As far as I know, this is only true for NBA rulesets.

That's been a long debated point and there has been no definitive ruling on it. I've made some arguments for taking off whatever counts you do have as you definitely know that much but no more. Other say you must have more than definite knowledge but must have complete knowledge.

A couple years ago in our 8th grade rec league tourney...we had a ref call the game over when the the clock operator didn't start the clock. IIRC the sitch, there was like 8 seconds left...ball came in from endline...offense advanced it against pressure got it in the FC, made two FC passes and a shot went up and in that resulted in a 1 point win

Just one problem......Ref was blew the play dead saying "no shot, game is over"....Still 8 seconds on the clock! Everyone in the gym was :confused:

He said while he didn't have a visible count on bringing the ball up from BC to FC...he was counting in his head and there was no way two passes and a shot could have happened because they used 8 seconds to get the ball into FC....It was a mess that only he knows what happened...

I've gotta say thanks to those who understood what I was attempting to ask and apologize to those I confused.

A more appropriate way to ask would have been "why two seconds" or "how would an official determine 2 seconds had elapsed in the OP."

:D

If you had a count on as a referee, that is definite knowledge of how much time to take off.

If you ever have a count on and the clock does not match your count, you cannot adjust the clock to the violation at hand. For example, if the ball is taken out of bounds on a full court press with 15 seconds remaining and you whistled a 10 second backcourt violation with 2 seconds now remaining on the clock, you cannot reset the clock to 5 seconds to match the stopped clock with the 10 second violation.

Your count is the definite knowledge you have to go by so in the scenario posted, you could take off 2 seconds from the closely guarded count. It was a merited free throw so it stands and there was no erroneous information from the official so you now replace the disqualified player with B running the baseline for a throw-in.
I love this game.
Alan

Thanks for that response - that's what I figured as I'd searched a couple threads here and looked at any resources I could find and couldn't find anything definitive other than peoples' opinions.

Would be nice to get a clarification on this from the NFHS at some point...

As for the 0.3 seconds, the rule is that you cannot catch and shoot with 0.3 or less. Therefore you would have to take off more than 0.3 seconds, would you not? Which I think leaves you right back where you started -- that without a count you have no definite knowledge.

Yes and no.
This is not directed specifically at you, but all of those who have recently made a claim on this forum that a try takes 0.3 seconds. You just happened to make the latest post.
The 0.3 rule was put in to eliminate issues with the reaction of the timer. It does not equate to saying that a try for goal takes exactly or at least 0.3 seconds. Some players may be able to catch and shoot in under 0.3 seconds, but because a timer has difficulty observing this action and starting the clock quickly enough to accurately time the play, such trys at the end of a period were usually being released prior to the sounding of the horn even though there was very little time on the clock when the play began. Therefore, in the spirit of fair play, the NFHS rules makers had to draw the line somewhere. They elected to draw it at 0.3 or less. Does that mean that there is some physical reason that a try can't be attempted in 0.27 seconds? Of course, not. However, there obviously is a history behind where that number came from. The NCAA uses it and the NBA has a similar rule, but with a major difference as their book actually reads LESS THAN 0.3 seconds.
The fact is that several years ago the NBA was one of the first groups to do a detailed study of last second attempts for goal.
They found that ON AVERAGE these rushed trys for goal were taking 0.3 seconds. Of course, that means that some took longer and some took less and the players were trying to hurry. So trying to claim that one has definite knowledge that a try takes 0.3 seconds is wrong. We really don't know how long any particular try takes. We have a good guess, but that's not definite knowledge.
So please understand that this rule has more to do with fairness and having to deal with human reaction time than the on court action of any particular player.

BTW the NBA also has a rule that whenever the ball is touched inbounds and knocked immediately OOB a minimum of 0.3 seconds must be removed from the clock. So even if the timer is slow, that much game time must elapse.
That is one rule that I would like to see the NFHS adopt.

The problem I've always had with using the count as "definite knowledge" is that the majority of counts are always several seconds slow. I guess you could say you know you've had at least that much time run off. But nobody does a visible count in real time.

In this case, I'd count the basket, leave the 4.1 seconds on the clock and let the other team inbounds the ball. If you do anything else with the clock, you're just guessing.

I disagree.

The rule states that a shot following an inbounds pass/jump ball/FT rebound cannot score with 0.3 or less on the clock. It does NOT state that every shot must run at least 0.3 off of the clock (unless you're playing NBA rules).

Why do you want to know when a player has 4 fouls?

What if???
 

He had missed the followup??? Would you reshoot the FT??? Go to ot??

Depends on where the ball was when the officials realized the problem and stopped the game. If there was no team control, go to the arrow. If there was team control, that team would get the ball. It's a POI question.

Either way, whether the try is successful has no bearing on the time situation, and you would not in any case reshoot the FT.