2-pt or 3-pt on close shot at end of period.

[bob jenkins]

I don't know that there's a rules reference for this, but if in doubt, it was a 2.

[Mark Padgett]

If you're really not sure and one coach wants a 3 while the other wants a 2, just split the difference and call it a 2 1/2. Then everybody's happy.

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by Mark Padgett

If you're really not sure and one coach wants a 3 while the other wants a 2, just split the difference and call it a 2 1/2. Then everybody's happy.

I was about to suggest that you possessed Solomon-like wisdom, until I realized that Solomon would have solved it by ordering both coaches to be cut in half.

[muxbule]

OK, BITS that made me laugh and then I thought cutting coaches in half is not a bad solution to some issues.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by Mark Padgett

If you're really not sure and one coach wants a 3 while the other wants a 2, just split the difference and call it a 2 1/2. Then everybody's happy.

The benefit of this ruling is that it dramatically increases the probability of.... no overtime!

[Tio]

The key on this play is if a crew member has definite knowledge whether the the try was a 2 or 3 pt. attempt. If you aren't sure, then you have to go with whatever the calling official has.

I think we all need to help on the last second shot and certainly use the monitor if it is available to you.

[constable]

Originally Posted by Tio

The key on this play is if a crew member has definite knowledge whether the the try was a 2 or 3 pt. attempt. If you aren't sure, then you have to go with whatever the calling official has.

I think we all need to help on the last second shot and certainly use the monitor if it is available to you.

If you don't have definite knowledge of a 3 point try, than it's a 2 point bucket.

Replay may only be used during a state/province championship.

[sseltser]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

I don't know that there's a rules reference for this, but if in doubt, it was a 2.

I had a partner mention this once. It sounded odd, but I didn't think twice about it. Is this something that came from the rule change of adding the three point line? Any other reason why this is the case, as opposed to the opposite?

[Vinski]

Not sure if this is a definitive interpretation for the OP, but I think it’s enough to say that the officials can use the scorer and time when ever needed.

5.10.1 SITUATION D: There are six seconds left on the clock in the fourth quarter and the ball is out of bounds in the possession of Team A. The throw-in by A1 touches the referee on the court and then goes across the court and out of bounds. The timer permits two seconds to run off the clock. What recourse does the coach of either team have in such situation? RULING: Either coach may step to the scorer’s table and request a 60-second time-out and have the referee come to the table. The coach is permitted to do this under provisions of the coach’s rule. The referee shall come to the sideline and confer with one or both coaches and the timer about the matter; and if the referee has definite knowledge that there were six seconds on the clock when the ball was awarded to Team A for the throw-in, it is the responsibility of the referee to have the two seconds put back on the clock. The timer and scorer and the other official(s) can be used by the referee to gain definite information. If there is no mistake or if it cannot be rectified, the requesting team will be charged with a 60-second time-out. (5-11- 3 Exception b; 5-8-4; 10-5-1c)

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Vinski

Not sure if this is a definitive interpretation for the OP, but I think it’s enough to say that the officials can use the scorer and time when ever needed. 5.10.1 SITUATION D... Either coach may step to the scorer’s table and request a 60-second time-out and have the referee come to the table. The coach is permitted to do this under provisions of the coach’s rule...The timer and scorer and the other official(s) can be used by the referee to gain definite information. If there is no mistake or if it cannot be rectified, the requesting team will be charged with a 60-second time-out. (5-11- 3 Exception b; 5-8-4; 10-5-1c)

Good citation, but I have a slightly off topic question. What rule requires that the coach request, or be charged with, a 60 second time out to correct such an error or mistake? I copied these citations from a recent thread (Thanks Nevadaref):

In the 2003-04 book it was 10-5-1 (b and c):
b. Confer with personnel at scorer's table to request a 60-second time-out for a correctable error, as in 2-10.
c. Confer with personnel at scorer's table to request a 60-second time-out to prevent or rectify a timing or scoring mistake or alternating possession mistake.

In 2004-05 it was changed:
10-5-1(b) Confer with personnel at scorer's table to request a 60-second time-out (or one 30-second time-out if that is the only type of time-out remaining) for a correctable error as in 2-10, or to prevent or rectify a timing or scoring mistake or alternating possession mistake.

In 2005-06 it was reorganized and clarified:
10-5-2 The head coach may also confer with personnel at scorer's table to request a 60-second time-out (or one 30-second time-out if that is the only type of time-out remaining) for a correctable error as in 2-10, or to prevent or rectify a timing or scoring mistake or alternating possession mistake.

In 2008-09 it was changed to the current version:
10-5-1(c) The head coach may stand and/or leave the coaching box to confer with personnel at the scorer’s table to request a time-out as in 5-8-4.

Note that any language specifically referring to a 60 second, or a 30 second, timeout has been eliminated.

Inquiring minds want to know.

[Vinski]

Well, 5.11.3 says
. . . Only one 60-second time-out is charged (or one 30-second timeout, if that is the only type of time-out remaining) in 5-8-4 regardless of the amount of time consumed when no correction is made.
EXCEPTION: No time-out is charged:
a. If, in 5-8-3, the player’s request results from displaced eyeglasses or lens.
b. If, in 5-8-4, the error or mistake is prevented or rectified.

And 5-8-4 says…
Time-out occurs and the clock, if running, shall be stopped when an official:
. . . Responds to the scorer’s signal to grant a coach’s request that a correctable error, as in 2-10, or a timing, scoring or alternating-possession mistake be prevented or rectified. The appeal to the official shall be presented at the scorer’s table where a coach of each team may be present.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Vinski

5.11.3 Only one 60-second time-out is charged (or one 30-second timeout, if that is the only type of time-out remaining) in 5-8-4 regardless of the amount of time consumed when no correction is made. EXCEPTION: No time-out is charged:
a. If, in 5-8-3, the player’s request results from displaced eyeglasses or lens.
b. If, in 5-8-4, the error or mistake is prevented or rectified.

Great citation. Thanks. I've been looking at this for almost a week. I wonder why they took the 60 second, or 30 second language out of 10-5-1? I wish that the NFHS would highlight all language changes, not just major rule changes.

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by sseltser

I had a partner mention this once. It sounded odd, but I didn't think twice about it. Is this something that came from the rule change of adding the three point line? Any other reason why this is the case, as opposed to the opposite?

My understanding is that yes, this evolved with the addition of the three point line. A three is only a three if the official signals that it is a three point shot, even if the shot is taken from mid court. Failing to signal a three point shot is a CE for failing to count or cancel a score and must be corrected within the CE time frame. And if there is doubt whether it was a two or three point shot, it is a two. If there is no three point line painted on the floor (and there are a few out there still, like the little church gymnasium I work in occasionally), there can be no three point shots.