Clock doesn't start question

[Adam]

Originally Posted by socalreff

Are you that inept that you can't replay the play in your head and have a very good estimate of the time elapsed?
This exact play was brought to the National Fed. and the interp. was to take off the time based on your best estimate. Mary Struckoff was adamant that the language in the rule specifically states that you only need definite knowledge that there was an errror.

Where is this published?

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Where is this published?

{Jepordy theme song plays}

[socalreff]

Originally Posted by Ch1town

{Jepordy theme song plays}

A.R. 136. With 4 seconds remaining on the game clock, A1 makes a
throw-in to A2. The game clock does not start when the throwin
is touched by A2. The ball is passed twice, a shot is taken
and the rebound is deflected out of bounds by B1. Prior to
placing the ball at the disposal of A1 for a throw-in, the official
recognizes that there are 4 seconds on the game clock indicating
that the game clock was not properly started on the previous
throw-in.
RULING: When an obvious timing mistake has occurred because
of failure to start or stop the game clock properly, the mistake shall
be corrected only when the referee has definite information relative
to the time involved. The officials have definite information that the
game clock did not start. The officials shall confer with each other and/or check with
the official timer to determine the correct time, if any time remains,
to be placed on the game clock. By rule, the decision must be made
relative to the time involved. The officials are not permitted to leave 4
seconds on the game clock and repeat the initial the throw-in by A1.
(Rule 5-11.1)

[socalreff]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Where is this published?

A.R. 131. With 10 seconds remaining on the game clock in the first half,
A1 makes a throw-in to A2 (game clock not started—official
timer’s mistake). A2 dribbles into the front court and misses
the try. B1 recovers the rebound and dribbles the full length of
the playing court. As the player passes the bench, the coach of
Team A notices that the game clock has not started and calls
the mistake to the attention of the official timer, who starts the
game clock. With one second left on the game clock in the half,
A2 fouls B1. The bonus is in effect. Time expires before the official
timer can stop the game clock.
RULING: The referee cannot correct this official timer’s mistake unless
he or she knows relatively how much time had elapsed while the
game clock was stopped. The referee shall conduct a re-enactment of
the sequential occurrence of the play to determine that relative time.
To assist the referee, information may be attained from the official
timer who should have informed the official of the mistake. When
the referee determines that there is time remaining, the referee shall
put the determined time on the game clock. A2 shall be assessed with
a personal foul and play shall be resumed at the point where the ball
was located when play was stopped to correct the timer’s mistake.
In this case, B1 shall be awarded the entitled free throw(s) for A2’s
personal foul and play shall be resumed from that point with the corrected
time on the game clock. A correction is only permitted when
it falls within the prescribed time frame limit. When it is determined
that there is no time left on the game clock, the game is over and the
personal foul is not assessed unless it is flagrant or intentional.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by socalreff

This exact play was brought to the National Fed. and the interp. was to take off the time based on your best estimate. Mary Struckoff was adamant

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Where is this published?

Originally Posted by socalreff

A.R. 131.

So this question was brought to the NFHS, and Mary Struckoff was so adamant that the FED issued an NCAA Approved Ruling?

[socalreff]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

So this question was brought to the NFHS, and Mary Struckoff was so adamant that the FED issued an NCAA Approved Ruling?

I cited cases from the NCAA Case book to support the rule. NFHS and NCAA - the wording of the rule is the same.
I don't have a Fed case book handy to know if this play is cited.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by socalreff

I cited cases from the NCAA Case book to support the rule. NFHS and NCAA - the wording of the rule is the same.
I don't have a Fed case book handy to know if this play is cited.

Again, I need to see where the NFHS published this ruling from Mary. Two different governing bodies.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Again, I need to see where the NFHS published this ruling from Mary. Two different governing bodies.

And Mary happens to run both organizations. I would suspect that she is not going to advocate two completely different interpretations when the language for both is exactly the same. I could be totally wrong, but that is a guess I am willing to make right now.

Peace

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

And Mary happens to run both organizations.

Well, she doesn't run either of them, but I know what you mean. However, I think that Mary is the Rules Editor only for the women's side of NCAA, not the men's. I think Ed Bilik is the men's rules editor/interpreter.