Here's a weird clock question
 

I had a second year guy ask me this the other night at our local kids rec league ref meeting.

A1 is to inbound following a violation on team B. The clock is stopped. A1 holds the ball over the line and it is grabbed by B1, forcing a jump ball. Would you chop the clock as soon as the ball is touched by B1 then stop it virtually immediately? Or would you rule the ball wasn't legally touched so the clock would not start?

He also asked if it was an AP throw-in instead of one following a violation, who would get the subsequent throw-in and what would happen to the AP arrow.

The clock question is a good one and I don't have my books to research but the held ball on the AP throw in stays with the team who was making the throw. Since there was no end to the throw in the arrow stays where it was until the completed AP throw in to come.
Again, no books to site rules or casebook but it won't take long for someone.

Seems similar to the kicked throwin dilemma. The clock starts when the ball is touched, so it seems fair for there to be some lag time.
Personally, it would be hard for me to "correct" either way.

An easy fix to this
 

I was involved with the kicked throw in dilemma discussion and thought I'd throw in my .02 on this one. IMO, the reason for the alternating possession rules to be in there at all is for the teams to "take turns" in what used to be jump ball situations. 6-4-4 currently reads "The direction of the possession arrow is reversed immediately after an alternating-possession throw-in ends. An alternating-possession throw-in ends when the throw-in ends as in 4-42-5."

In the sitch above, there is an AP throwin that "ends" with a held ball. (But it doesn't end as in 4-42-5, thus the conundrum) Why not just revise the wording of 6-4-4 to say the direction of the possession arrow is reversed when the ball is placed at the disposal of a team for an alternating possession throw in.

This seems to me to be a fairly simple editorial change, and gets rid of those rare and obscure rulings that have to happen because of the wording of 6-4-4, and restores the "take turns" intent of the alternating possession.

I'm with you, but the NFHS has determined the arrow presents the throw-in team with the opportunity to have an entire throw-in. Personally, I think once the thrower is handed the ball, the AP arrow has done its job, but the NFHS disagrees (along with 99% of the posters on this board).

Neither. 5-9-4.

The clock doesn't start when the ball is touched. It is started when the ball is legally touched by a player on the court after it has been released by the thrower.

In the held ball and kicked pass situations the clock does not start.

Right, I'd forgotten about the "after it has been released" part, but I'm not sure about the "legally" part; unless it's new. I'll check my book when I get in the car.

Someone send up the bat signal.....
 

Where's our infamous table-guy when you need him? He'd know what to do! ;)

5-9-4: "If play is resumed by a throw-in, the clock shall be started when the
ball touches, or is legally touched by, a player on the court after it is released by
the thrower."

How can this be a jump ball if one player is OOB?

In the OP it is stated that A1 still has possession of the ball OOB when B1 creates the "jump ball". A1 never releases the ball & is still OOB, so how can the clock be started?

Because that's the rule. Would call would you suggest?

Saw that, thanks. I also see it was the same last year. I wonder if it's changed, as I recall a dilemma on this play but don't see it now.

Perhaps you are confusing this with a previous discussion about a kicked inbounds pass? In that case the throw-in has been released. Or I would hope it has been.

All I was doing was asking a question as to why the call is what it is.

How I understand rules/regulations, this would be a Defensive throw-in violation as the offense is unable to complete the throw-in. However, show me the rule & case book play that shows otherwise, & my thinking will change.

You're making up rules. Of course the defense is trying to prevent the offense from completing a throw-in -- no rule prohibits that.

by B1 grabbing the ball and preventing A1 from completing the throw-in while A1 still has the ball is not a violation?

mbyron, I also asked that be shown the rule &/or case book play that says otherwise, which you did not do.

How about 9-2-10?

Read the OP again. A1 extended the ball over the line, iow, out over the inbounds area.

Now tell us how 9-2-10 applies.

There was never an explanation if A1 pulled the ball back over the plane before the whistle.

If the ball did recross the plane then B1 would be in violation?

ART. 10. . . The opponent(s) of the thrower shall not have any part of his/her person through the inbounds side of the throw-in boundary-line plane until the ball has been released on a throw-in pass.
NOTE: The thrower may penetrate the plane provided he/she does not touch the inbounds area before the ball is released on the throw-in pass. The opponent in this situation may legally touch or grasp the ball.

A1 holds the ball across the plane, true, however what constitutes the legality of B1 being able to grab the ball causing the "jump ball"?

Also why didn't A1 just release the ball as soon as B1 grabbed it?

In this sitch, there are many what ifs or whys.

I believe A1 causes the ball to be out of bounds, and therefore not a jump ball. 7-2-2. IMO.

Case book play 7.6.4 Situation F.

I like it when the answer is so obvious that all I have to do is post a citation that addresses it exactly! (And I've been able to do that twice just in this thread!)

Bzzzzzt. Thanks for playing. ;)

The rule is pretty simple. If A1 holds the ball on the inbound side of the plane, Team B is free to play the ball. That means he can knock it out of his hands/cause a held ball. If Team A doesn't want this to happen, they best stay on the out of bounds side of the plane. In this sitch, if A1 were to hold the ball on the inbounds side of the plane and just dropped it whenever B1 grabbed it, the ball would be in play. A1 just basically gave the ball to Team B

How does a thrower cause the ball to be out of bounds whenever he is legally out of bounds and the throw-in hasn't ended? The correct call is a held ball.

The throw-in did not end. A1 is legally out of bounds.

Well, that certainly addresses the OP with an answer....I'm still wondering why player control or team control comes into the picture at all. If two players hold the ball, who's controlling it doesn't seem to be part of the question at that time, if one player is out of bounds. The player OB makes the ball OB, regardless of team/player control, doesn't he? Again, I can read 7.6.4 F, but just curious about why control is part of the debate, and why OB doesn't supercede here. I appreciate your response...it seems dead on point.

Yes it really is obvious, I never thought of it like stated.

7.6.4 SITUATION F: Thrower A1 inadvertently holds the ball through the endline plane during a throw-in. B1 is able to get his/her hands on the ball and A1 cannot pull it back.
RULING: There is no player or team control during a throw in,
therefore a held ball is called, resulting in an alternating-possession throw-in. If the original throw-in is an alternating-possession throw-in, Team A still has the arrow following the held ball.

How can a ball be OOB if it was not inbounds via player/team control to begin with?

The throw-in never ended with the ball in control inbounds.

The clock should never have started as there was no player/team control inbounds.

Also case book play 6.4.5SitB.

Tsk, tsk, tsk....

Wrong again. I'd tell you to stick to timing but it looks like you don't really know what you're doing in that area either.

Player or team control has got diddly-squat to do with starting the clock on a throw-in. The pertinent rule....5-9-4... has already been cited.

Jump ball to start the game...both jumpers touch the ball legally. Are you saying you won't start the clock when the jumpers touch the ball? Because according to what you just stated, it wouldn't start since there is no team/player control in this situation...

The rule has already been posted earlier as to when the clock should be correctly started.

AI (OOB Player) never released the ball to be inbounds, so the clock would not be started.

SECTION 9 RE-STARTING THE CLOCK
ART. 1 . . . After time has been out, the clock shall be started when the official signals time-in. If the official neglects to signal, the timer is authorized to start the clock as per rule, unless an official specifically signals continued time-out.
ART. 2 . . . If play is started or resumed by a jump, the clock shall be started when the tossed ball is legally touched.
ART. 3 . . . If a free throw is not successful and the ball is to remain live, the clock shall be started when the ball touches or is touched by a player on the court.
ART. 4 . . . If play is resumed by a throw-in, the clock shall be started when the ball touches, or is legally touched by, a player on the court after it is released by the thrower.

In the OP, A1 (the thrower) never releases the ball although B1 is holding the ball. Because the ball HAS NOT been released by the thrower, the clock will not start.

In the OP, you are correct. But your blanket assertion that the clock does not start because there is no team control ... that is just wrong. Team control has exactly nothing to do with when the clock properly starts. The clock starts...wait for it...when the ball touches, or is legally touched by, a player on the court... And merely touching the ball does not create player or team control.

ART. 3 . . . If a free throw is not successful and the ball is to remain live, the clock shall be started when the ball touches or is touched by a player on the court.

In the case of a missed free throw, the clock can be started by an offensive player tapping the ball for a try on the rebound, or a defensive player taps the ball towards another player.

On opening jumps, the clock starts when the ball is tapped by one or both jumpers, unless signaled otherwise.

However as stated in 5-9-1 the timer can start the clock if they do not see the floor official signal start clock/neglects to signal (their discretion on what it means by ball legally touched), unless floor official specifically signals continued time out.

I always wait for the floor official to signal start clock before the clock starts. Rarely have I had to start the clock due to failure to see the start clock signal.

Generally when I see the start clock signal, there is player/team control established except during jump balls & free throw rebounds.

Jump ball, throw-in, free throw missed, in all cases the clock starts when the ball is legally touched. If the clock doesn't start until team control is established, it was started late.

I was thinking that, to be honest, but the way the rule reads even that wouldn't start the clock.

You need to show me a rule that says it's a violation for the defense to prevent the offense from completing a throwin.

Except for the fact that the player is supposed to be OOB....it is a throwin.

This, as has been stated, is just wrong.
But is this a retraction?

then there's this:

Key word here is "generally." Don't base your understanding of the rules on what you generally see happen. Quite a few times each game you'll see a throw-in pass tipped before it is controlled.

The defensive player crosses the plane such as 7-6-4

In other words, I was meaning most of the time.

As has been mentioned several times, the timer is not right there in front of/next to the play, so the timer has to rely on the floor official to signal when to start/stop the clock.

The player breaking the plane is the violation. It has nothing to do with completing the throw-in.

I find the thought of eagle using his discretion to be somewhat troubling.

So it's a retraction from your first statement. Understood.

Um, no. The thrower held the ball over the plane in-bounds. The defender grabbed the ball on the in-bounds side of the plane. At NO time, did the defender cross the plane out-of-bounds. That's why it's a legal play.

You don't have a friggin' clue whatinthehell you're talking about. And that includes when and why to start the clock. If you don't understand what we're talking about, by all means ask questions until you do. But DO NOT try to tell us what to do. Quite simply, you do not have the rules knowledge to be doing something like that.

Just a suggestion from the kinder, gentler JR.....

Instead You Struck Out ...
 

C'mon chseagle. You're slipping. This was a softball for you. You should have knocked it out of the park.

Others have commented on the meaning of that statement.

I would like to commend you on using the proper "have" instead of your usual "of" in this situation.

Thank you.

Maybe I missed it...

A1 holds ball over boundry line on an AP throw in and was tied up.

So mechanically, I see 99.999995% of officials kill it before chopping and going immediately into a held ball signal.

Most timers arent going to pluck the "start clock" thingy on and off real quick in this sitch.

No way anyone has knowledge of time consumed.

Without knowledge, how are we addressing this aspect of the OP by rule?

We're addressing it by 5-9-4 (I think you missed it). Clock does not start here.

Oh....AFTER it's released!!

To quote the poet laureate Rosanne Rosannadan...nevermind

Tsk, tsk, tsk......

Tsk!

We hear from another one of Chseagle's illegitimate sons.....:rolleyes:






Heeheeheehee......:D

yeah yeah....

Its funny how you read something 3 or 4 times and miss a word.

Happens to my wife all the time....I'll e-mail her on game day: "Honey, after the game tonight were having a couple beers and then I'll be home". Funny, all she picks up is "After the game I'll be home".

Of course I've learned from this..."What time will you be home?" I'm asked. the answer is always...."yes."

It's a sin for wimmen to get between their husbands and their wings'n'brownpop.

Or even their apres-game tofu'n'diet coke if it's some short-azz, scum-sucking Bo-Sox fan living under a bridge up around Springfield, MASS.

I think that's written in the Bible someplace.

It's true, it's true.....

I happen to know that at least one diminutive, under-bridge dwelling Bo-Sox fan from Springfield enjoys regular coke, straight from a classic Coke-shaped bottle. With fish and chips. I don't think that's in the bible anywhere, but I'm sure the angels have recorded it in heaven.

It's true, it's true..... :)

I read that wrong, and at first thought you were suggesting he likes to drink the New Coke out of a Classic Coke bottle. All I could think of is, "where's the integrity?"

Well, he is a Bo-Sox fan. So I can see how you'd feel immediately compelled to question his integrity. ;)

At least I struck out swinging & trying to understand.

Nope, you should try to understand by asking questions, not answering them.

So sayeth the kinder, gentler JR....

I was both asking & answering questions.

As soon as I can get things better with my knee, I am looking at joining the ranks of Floor Officials.

My wife is wanting to become a floor official as well.

So now you're a Brontosaurus instead of a Tyrannosaurus Rex?

Call me, I'd loooooove to work the table!

I'd give you some pointers during the game.....whether you want to hear them or not! :rolleyes:

LMAO I'll just give the visiting team all the Ts then j/k

Last at bat you struck out swinging. This at bat is not going so well either.

I see you are still getting things wrong. You see, a Brontosaurus never existed. That creature you refer to was the body of an apatosaurus and the head and feet of a camarasaurus. The head used was actually found many miles away. That's the way paleontologists do things to prove evolution. If they do not have an integral part they will GENERALLY just add something they have laying around that seems to look right. By saying GENERALLY I really mean MOST OF THE TIME.

Ah. Now I know where I got the "body by Arnold" combined with the face of an angel.

Thanks, Preacher.:D

On The Shoulders Of Giants ...
 

Guess who fixed it? Scientists. That's how science, and the scientific method, works. Scientists come up with hypotheses, peer review occurs, and other scientists correct incorrect hypotheses.

"Brontosaurus" skeletons were constructed during a time when various museums were competing for customers, and funding, so it was a race to come up with the best fossil displays. Mistakes were made because many scientists acted more like P.T. Barnum, and Indiana Jones, than like true scientists. Not a proud moment for science, but it did generate a lot of interest in dinosaurs. Here in Connecticut, the Peabody Museum, one of those museums in the "race", finally put the correct head on our Apatosaurus several years ago. And they didn't do it in secret, in the middle of the night. It was a big deal, covered by the media, a teachable moment.