Here's a weird clock question

[Mark Padgett]

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.

[muxbule]

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.

[Adam]

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.

[centkyref]

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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by centkyref

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).

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Mark Padgett

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?

Neither. 5-9-4.

[Cobra]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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.

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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Cobra

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.

[grunewar]

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

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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.

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."

[chseagle]

Originally Posted by Mark Padgett

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.

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

Originally Posted by mbyron

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."

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?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by chseagle

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

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

[Adam]

Originally Posted by mbyron

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."

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.

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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.

[chseagle]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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

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.