end of game timing issue

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

And how exactly does an official grant a time-out?

Are you advocating that he just thinks it, and that no action is required?

See case book play 5.10.1Sitc. Note the wording "...he/she properly sounds the whistle and gives the signal to stop the clock. While doing this, the official is able to see the exact time remaining in the fourth quarter." Note the phrase--"while doing this." It doesn't say that an an official has to complete blowing the whistle and giving the signal, as you are trying to claim. It simply states that if the official is looking at the clock at any time during the stop-clock process, then that's the time that gets put back on. That includes the start of the process too. You know--when you start blowing your whistle and when you start putting your hand up.

In this case being discussed, if the clock shows 0.00 and the horn has gone off when the official looks at the clock while granting the TO, then no time can be put back on.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

And how exactly does an official grant a time-out?

Are you advocating that he just thinks it, and that no action is required?

We had a 5 page thread about this, more or less. granting time-out as player goes oob



There is no definitive answer in the books of when the timeout is granted. In rule 5-8-1, we learn that on a foul, held ball, or violation, the clock stops when these things are signaled by an official, not when they happen. 5-8-3 tells us that it stops when an official grants a timeout request. This led me to conclude that the granting and the signal were the same thing. Virtually everyone assured me that they were not.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

See case book play 5.10.1Sitc. Note the wording "...he/she properly sounds the whistle and gives the signal to stop the clock. While doing this, the official is able to see the exact time remaining in the fourth quarter." Note the phrase--"while doing this." It doesn't say that an an official has to complete blowing the whistle and giving the signal, as you are trying to claim. It simply states that if the official is looking at the clock at any time during the stop-clock process, then that's the time that gets put back on. That includes the start of the process too. You know--when you start blowing your whistle and when you start putting your hand up.

In this case being discussed, if the clock shows 0.00 and the horn has gone off when the official looks at the clock while granting the TO, then no time can be put back on.

We are discussing granting a timeout, are we not? The casebook play here deals with the signal to stop the clock. As noted above, we have concluded that granting a timeout and signaling it are not the same thing.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by blindzebra

Which is why I always keep a count...even when I don't have a reason to count...during last second situations.

Good advice for all officials.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

See case book play 5.10.1Sitc. Note the wording "...he/she properly sounds the whistle and gives the signal to stop the clock. While doing this, the official is able to see the exact time remaining in the fourth quarter." Note the phrase--"while doing this." It doesn't say that an an official has to complete blowing the whistle and giving the signal, as you are trying to claim. It simply states that if the official is looking at the clock at any time during the stop-clock process, then that's the time that gets put back on. That includes the start of the process too. You know--when you start blowing your whistle and when you start putting your hand up.

In this case being discussed, if the clock shows 0.00 and the horn has gone off when the official looks at the clock while granting the TO, then no time can be put back on.

Yeah, and the timer is supposed to react to the official action's and stop the clock. There is no other reasonable way to do it without the PTI.

What I cannot agree to is the conclusion to which your thinking must logically lead. That being that a timing error occurs every time that an official grants a time-out. That simply is not a reasonable interpretation of the NFHS rule.

[TD21]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Oh? Try reading the applicable rule- R5-8-3----"Time out occurs and the clock, if running, shall stop when an official GRANTS a player's/head coach's oral or visual request for a timeout."

No, I don't expect the timer to read an official's mind. I do expect an official to look at the clock however and note the time on it when he GRANTS the TO. That's definite information and it's the time that he can put back up on the clock, by rule(5-10).

Lah me, indeed......

I guess if a player was thinking about shooting the ball with .5 seconds to go but doesn't get the ball out of his hands until after the clock reads 0.00 should be allowed the basket if its successful. I mean he was thinking about it then, so the fact he didn't release it in time is irrelevant. This from the guy who is all about the rules. WOW!

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Yeah, and the timer is supposed to react to the official action's and stop the clock. There is no other reasonable way to do it without the PTI.

Yup. And your point is?

We're talking about a specific situation; a situation where the clock may have not been stopped properly. To wit, we're discussing the application of rule 5-10. In the case being discussed, if the decision by the calling official is that the timer actually did stop the clock correctly in the granting of the TO request, then no adjustment can be made. The quarter is over. However, if the decision is made that the timer did not stop the clock correctly, then we have to determine IF we can put time back on the clock using definite knowledge. If so, what is then in dispute is when we apply that definite knowledge. I'm saying that you apply it when you grant the TO, as per the rule that I cited. You're saying that you can't apply the definite knowledge until after the stop-clock mechanic is completely over. Obviously, I disagree because I'm going by the strict language of rule 5-8-3.

See where I'm coming from now? I didn't expect TD21 to understand all that. Even though he dwells in the mythical and magical Land of College and Above, it's still simply beyond his capabilities. I sureasheck expected that you would though.

[RookieDude]

If I may...I'll jump in here late.

I have to admit...I skimmed this thread...so forgive me if I missed what I am about to propose.

Sooo, Nevada...if an official is looking at the clock, as he is in the process of granting a TO...but, the official fumbles around and does not get air in the whistle untill after the final horn sounds...are the Coach and team, that wanted the TO, out of luck?

If your answer is NO(the Coach is not out of luck)...you would grant the TO and put the appropriate time on the clock...then wouldn't you agree that JR's interp is correct?

Some officials may be quicker at the TO granting procedure...some officials are slower...some officials may fumble around with their whistle...shouldn't a team have confidence of knowing there can at least be consistency when applying the rules as JR has stated?

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by RookieDude

If I may...I'll jump in here late.

I have to admit...I skimmed this thread...so forgive me if I missed what I am about to propose.

Sooo, Nevada...if an official is looking at the clock, as he is in the process of granting a TO...but, the official fumbles around and does not get air in the whistle untill after the final horn sounds...are the Coach and team, that wanted the TO, out of luck?

If your answer is NO(the Coach is not out of luck)...you would grant the TO and put the appropriate time on the clock...then wouldn't you agree that JR's interp is correct?

Some officials may be quicker at the TO granting procedure...some officials are slower...some officials may fumble around with their whistle...shouldn't a team have confidence of knowing there can at least be consistency when applying the rules as JR has stated?

Personally, I do think that the team is out of luck and loses those few seconds. This is just a human mistake by an official. Mistakes get made throughout the game and calls get missed.
The same would be true if the official attempted to call a violation or a foul and fumbles around with his whistle, time isn't put back on the clock.

Can you imagine an official instructing the timer to reset the clock to 4:03 because that is when he intended to blow the whistle? That's ridiculous.

In fact, I had this exact situation in a game earlier this year. Team A scored and Team B gathered the ball and stepped OOB. I was the new Trail (tableside). My partner was the new lead (also tableside as it was 3-man and we had a C).

B1 throws the ball into the court, but B2 misses it and it bounces TWICE in the court and then goes OOB untouched on the sideline next to the C. There is a whistle which I assume is from the C, but he just looked at me, when the Trail came running in and said that the coach of Team B requested a time-out and he was late granting it. This situation made us look silly and almost caused the coach of Team A to take a T. After the game in the lockerroom my partner confessed that he had spat his whistle out of his mouth while attempting to blow it. That is what caused the severe delay. We had a laugh about it.

PS JR's point intrigues me, but I don't agree with it. I don't think that is a reasonable way to interpret the rule. We have a different understanding of when the clock SHOULD be stopped.

[jdw3018]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

In fact, I had this exact situation in a game earlier this year. Team A scored and Team B gathered the ball and stepped OOB. I was the new Trail (tableside). My partner was the new lead (also tableside as it was 3-man and we had a C).

B1 throws the ball into the court, but B2 misses it and it bounces TWICE in the court and then goes OOB untouched on the sideline next to the C. There is a whistle which I assume is from the C, but he just looked at me, when the Trail came running in and said that the coach of Team B requested a time-out and he was late granting it. This situation made us look silly and almost caused the coach of Team A to take a T. After the game in the lockerroom my partner confessed that he had spat his whistle out of his mouth while attempting to blow it. That is what caused the severe delay. We had a laugh about it.

I was going to ask you about this, because I've always been taught in this type of situation to grant the timeout. Obviously it looked terrible in your situation because there was such a delay...

The better scenario is after a made basket by B, Coach B requests a TO and I see this request and wish to grant it, but in the time between when I register the request and when I start blowing my whistle, A gathers the ball. In your reading, I shouldn't grant the TO, correct? This is one I've always been taught, and always have, granted. Same in a "scrum heading to a held ball" or a trap with violation or foul type of scenario. If the request came before and as an official I just didn't process fast enough, I should grant the TO.

Interested in your and others' thoughts?

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by jdw3018

I was going to ask you about this, because I've always been taught in this type of situation to grant the timeout. Obviously it looked terrible in your situation because there was such a delay...

The better scenario is after a made basket by B, Coach B requests a TO and I see this request and wish to grant it, but in the time between when I register the request and when I start blowing my whistle, A gathers the ball. In your reading, I shouldn't grant the TO, correct? This is one I've always been taught, and always have, granted. Same in a "scrum heading to a held ball" or a trap with violation or foul type of scenario. If the request came before and as an official I just didn't process fast enough, I should grant the TO.

Interested in your and others' thoughts?

In your situation, you have recognized a properly requested TO. I see no reason why it should not be granted. The main issue in this thread is the clock when the TO is "granted." Naturally this is more important at the end of the quarter. You recognize a TO request by A1, and at that same instant you are able to see the clock behind him, which shows .6 seconds. As quickly as possible, you raise the hand and blow the whistle, during which time the buzzer sounds. Can you put the .6 back on the clock? Nevada and I say no. As long as we have no specific language in the books saying when a TO is considered to be granted, there is no way to absolutely settle this issue.

[jdw3018]

Originally Posted by just another ref

As long as we have no specific language in the books saying when a TO is considered to be granted, there is no way absolutely settle this issue.

Agreed!

That said, if I can grant a TO regardless of player control because I recognized the request while there was PC, how can I not also make a clock change for the same purpose?

To me, it's easiest to do it this way, I'd simply argue that it needs to be one way or the other. Of course, if you can look at the clock after recognizing a TO request, you should also be able to blow the whistle at that point...

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Can you imagine an official instructing the timer to reset the clock to 4:03 because that is when he intended to blow the whistle? That's ridiculous.

I can imagine an official(me) instructing the timer to reset the clock to 4:03 because that is what he/she(I) saw on the clock when he/she(I) granted the TO. Ridiculous? Not when rules 5-8-3 and 5-10 tell me to follow that exact procedure.

Try hard to stick to the situation being discussed without bringing in irrelevant plays. It makes for a better discussion.

[CoachP]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Visitors ball under their own basket with 1.2 seconds left. A1's pass is intercepted by B1 who unsuccessfully asks for a time out before landing OOB. But, simultaneously with the whistle or a tiny fraction afterward, the buzzer sounds, clock shows 0:00, game over. From the description I got, it sounds like the clock may have started before the pass was touched. The question is, even if the official sees the clock start to move while the pass is in the air, there is no way to make a correction here, correct?
A footnote: Visitors' coach threw a fit, saying time should be put back. Officials apparently had a lengthy discussion about the play, during which visitors' fans threw stuff all over the court. Then, apparently thinking the game was not over, the visiting player scurried around and cleaned up the debris.

Per above red in OP, why can't the Official that witnessed the clock running while the throw in is in the air, blow the play dead, reset the clock to 1.2 and give A1 the throw in back? 5-10

I agree with others about the TO request and grant. Game over if clock started properly. If we start adding/predicting/guessing 0.5 seconds or so "lag time", then you need to be consistant and do it for every whistle that stops the clock for the whole game. If you don't do it the whole game, then you sureasheck don't do it with 1.2 in the 4th.

Until I reach the college level with video replay....

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by CoachP

Per above red in OP, why can't the Official that witnessed the clock running while the throw in is in the air, blow the play dead, reset the clock to 1.2 and give A1 the throw in back? 5-10

This could be done if he whistles it dead before the touch which ends the throw-in, as I believe was noted earlier. But referring to the OP, my idea was that if the official realized after the fact that the clock must have started early, since the kid couldn't have stayed in the air that long, there was no way to make an adjustment then with the information he had available.