I would put Situation 3 over Situation 2.

I stopped reading :D

The person who authored the ruling to that interp is an idiot and is totally wrong. :(

Strike the words "resumes from" and replace them with "continues after." That is how the NFHS should have phrased it.

No, that's clearly situation 6. :eek:

Ok, I'm not going to call names, but as far as I can tell, there is not even a debate on this one. No one has even suggested that the interp may be correct. (In contrast, there was at least some logic behind the backcourt ruling from a couple years ago, even if most of us disagreed with it.)

Am I wrong on that? Is anybody willing to argue for this ruling? If not, is there any "appeal" process for approved rulings? If there's anything at all we can do, we need to try to keep this one out of the casebook.

I agree with you, however...
 

This should be a correctable error, but it appears that the rule committee interp is different. The only case plays I see in the case book on this is regarding basket interference. The rule book doesn't explicitly limit 2-10-1-E to just BI, but they only give case plays that involve BI.

If they want to limit it in this way they should modify the rule book. As to an appeals process, I don't know the answer to that. There should be one, if one doesn't exist.

However, this is an official interp and unfortunately we have to live with it.

Erroneously Counting Or Canceling A Score ...
 

For years, the classic example of "erroneously counting or canceling a score" has been regarding the three point shot. We've been told, for many years, that if the officials, for whatever reason, fail to give the "touchdown signal" for a successful three point shot, that this is a correctable error that can be corrected within the correctable error time frame. After the time frame passes this error cannot be corrected.

Don't confuse this situation where the officials correctly signal the three point goal and the scorekeeper fails to count it as three points, which is a bookkeeping error that can be corrected until the officials leave the visual confines of the gym.

In my opinion, SITUATION 1 seems to be a correctable error, that is "erroneously counting a score", and it also appears that the time frame to correct this error has not expired.

Hopefully someone will contact the NFHS on this and they will come to their senses and reverse their interpretation, or at least give more detailed explanation of their interpretation.

So...
 

A1 is fouled with .3 tenths of a seconds or less (or more) on the clock and you fail to award the free throw. You give the ball to Team A for a throw-in. They throw it in and time expires. The teams and the officials go to their locker room for halftime. If you find the mistake BEFORE you hand the ball to a player to start the 3rd quarter, does the fouled player get his/her free throws? If yes, what's the difference?

What if this occurred to end the game and the coach (politely) talks to you about it as you are leaving the court? What do you do then? The game is over, but you are still on the court, so you can make the correction. How is that different from still having jurisdiction over the game during halftime.

The issue in this situation may be just not knowing how much time was on the clock. That would not be correctable.

The example of the FTs is not relevant because the FTs are merited regardless of the time showing on the clock.

A fellow official who I respect a lot has voiced the opinion that allowing the catch in this situation is analogous to missing a travel. They just missed the call, so it's not correctable.

I don't think I agree with that, because the travel is a judgment about where the ball was caught, or which foot is the pivot. In the NFHS interp, there is no judgment. Everyone agrees the ball was caught and everyone agrees that the clock showed .3 seconds.

So I disagree, but at least there is one voice out there who doesn't think the ruling is completely wrong.

I think the example is relevant. It's exactly the same. The rule was set aside incorrectly. In one case, a penalty was not assessed; in the other, a goal was incorrectly counted.

I agree the time on the clock doesn't really matter. My point was that it's the same window as in the situation.

It is not clear in the NFHS situation that the officials knew there was 0.3 on the clock. The sit. only states that 0.3 was on the clock. But, let's assume they did know.


Perhaps the 0.3 rule is to be treated not as a scoring rule but as a timing rule.....not that they didn't or didn't make the basket but that time must have, by this rule, expired before the shot was released. That actually is the historical basis for this rule.

In the case of a running clock play, you wouldn't go back and change your mind on whether a shot was nor was not before the horn after you count it, go to intermission, and return.

So, not observing the 0.3 rule is not counting the score incorrectly but judging the end of the period incorrectly...a timing mistake....not a correctable error.

This is a stretch, and not a convincing one at all. But I can't concentrate to give a good reason why, because I'm watching the ALCS at the moment. I'll check in again tomorrow.

Yeah, baseball puts me to sleep too.