0.02 Seconds left

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by chseagle

When did we start doing indoor track where the scoreboard displays hundreths of a second?

Some clocks do, especially when the clock is stopped.

Besides which, the post was corrected 7 hours before your post.

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

5-2-5
When play is resumed with a throw-in or free throw and three-tenths (.3) of a second or less remains on the clock, a player may not gain control of the ball and try for a field goal. In this situation only a tap could score.

A tap = one tap.

If two players tip it, that's it. I'm not going to score such a basket and all I need is that statement to back my call.

"A" is the indefinite article. It means you are referring to any of a group of like objects. A generic tap. To mean one tap it would have to say "only a single tap may score."

I agree that it's very unlikely that there will be sufficient time for a tipped ball to be tapped. However, unlike a ball that's caught with 0.3 seconds left, you must actually judge whether the tap got off instead of it being dead by rule.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

It also doesn't say two players can't tap the ball and score.

If the taps are sufficiently close together such that the time from the first touch to the final touch is less than 0.3, the shot counts. If the final touch is by the defense, only the first tap must beat the 0.3 time.

The only thing this rule is intended to preclude is a catch and shoot.

This is my take on the rule as well, especially the last sentence.

The point of the rule is not to specify how many taps (the rules makers would have written "one tap" instead of "a tap" if that were their intent), but rather to prohibit a player catching the ball and shooting with so little time on the clock.

The contrast is between "a tap" and "a tap or a try."

[just another ref]

A suggestion for editorial revision: When play is resumed and the clock shows .3 or less, when any player gains control, the period shall be over.

As written now, consider the following, if you want to split hairs.

A1 throws in to A2, who quickly catches and lobs toward the basket. A3 tips in in, clearly before the buzzer.

I think we would agree that the intent is that it should not, but........

[Smitty]

Originally Posted by just another ref

A suggestion for editorial revision: When play is resumed and the clock shows .3 or less, when any player gains control, the period shall be over.

As written now, consider the following, if you want to split hairs.

A1 throws in to A2, who quickly catches and lobs toward the basket. A3 tips in in, clearly before the buzzer.

I think we would agree that the intent is that it should not, but........

I'm not sure how that would really clarify anything that isn't already clear. I don't think anyone is arguing that a catch and shoot (or lob in your example) is not possible with .3 or less. It's the number of taps that is in question that can be possible in .3 or less. I'm not sure it's easily analyzed or possible to say without a doubt what can happen in that amount of time. You kind of just have to hope the clock starts on time and determine if the last tap occurred prior to the horn sounding. That's why we get paid the big bucks...

[jdw3018]

Originally Posted by Smitty

I'm not sure how that would really clarify anything that isn't already clear. I don't think anyone is arguing that a catch and shoot (or lob in your example) is not possible with .3 or less. It's the number of taps that is in question that can be possible in .3 or less. I'm not sure it's easily analyzed or possible to say without a doubt what can happen in that amount of time. You kind of just have to hope the clock starts on time and determine if the last tap occurred prior to the horn sounding. That's why we get paid the big bucks...

I do not believe it's impossible to catch and shoot in .3 seconds. That's not why the rule was created. It was simply created as a way to judge those last attempts because the margin of error in terms of starting the clock and hearing the horn correctly is greater than the ability to get the catch and shoot off. Therefore, easier to just make a hard and fast rule that officials can rely on.

No reason the Fed couldn't clarify to say that the first touching - regardless of if it's a tip or a tap or a bat or whatever - utilizes the .3 or less time, and any subsequent touching would occur after the horn.

[Smitty]

I believe there was a study and analysis done to prove without a doubt that you can't catch the ball and shoot in .3 seconds. Not sure how it would even be possible to analyze how many taps can be accomplished in that amount of time.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by jdw3018

No reason the Fed couldn't clarify to say that the first touching - regardless of if it's a tip or a tap or a bat or whatever - utilizes the .3 or less time, and any subsequent touching would occur after the horn.

Sure there is; there's no need to conduct a study for a situation that rarely, if ever, really happens.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Smitty

I don't think anyone is arguing that a catch and shoot (or lob in your example) is not possible with .3 or less.

A lot of people might argue that it is possible, but it doesn't matter if it's possible or not, because it is not allowed. A catch, toss, and tap in .3 likely isn't possible, but by rule, as currently written, it is allowed. The proposed revision would simply close this admittedly tiny loophole. The point of this rule is to remove judgment, and the possible complication of whether or not the clock was properly started.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by just another ref

A lot of people might argue that it is possible, but it doesn't matter if it's possible or not, because it is not allowed. A catch, toss, and tap in .3 likely isn't possible, but by rule, as currently written, it is allowed. The proposed revision would simply close this admittedly tiny loophole. The point of this rule is to remove judgment, and the possible complication of whether or not the clock was properly started.

No official working a high school game would allow your loophole to stand.

[Smitty]

Originally Posted by just another ref

A lot of people might argue that it is possible, but it doesn't matter if it's possible or not, because it is not allowed. A catch, toss, and tap in .3 likely isn't possible, but by rule, as currently written, it is allowed. The proposed revision would simply close this admittedly tiny loophole. The point of this rule is to remove judgment, and the possible complication of whether or not the clock was properly started.

What's the difference between a catch and shoot and a catch and toss?

[jdw3018]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Sure there is; there's no need to conduct a study for a situation that rarely, if ever, really happens.

Who said anything about a study? A study for this would be a stupid use of resources. All I'm suggesting is a clarification that would take all question out of the situation.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

No official working a high school game would allow your loophole to stand.

I wouldn't allow it either, but, as written, the loophole does exist.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Smitty

What's the difference between a catch and shoot and a catch and toss?

A catch and shoot is specifically forbidden, a catch and toss is not.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by jdw3018

Who said anything about a study? A study for this would be a stupid use of resources. All I'm suggesting is a clarification that would take all question out of the situation.

A study was done, showing it was virtually impossible to catch and shoot in that amount of time; that's why the rule is what it is. What basis would they have for declaring it impossible for two players to bat the ball in that amount of time?
1. It is possible.
+
2. It never happens.
=
3. It's not a problem in need of an inaccurate solution.