0.02 Seconds left

[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.

[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.

[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.