The rule doesn't say that in NF, only in NCAA. It simply says the clock starts when the ball is touched, period.

Hello again

When I first posted this situation I felt it was relatively simple; however, it appears by the ensuing discussion that it is more complex than I thought. It depends on how you interpret certain rules as to how you deal with it.

OOB issue: I struggled with B2 being the violator until I envisioned this situation with a Team A player being the one to step OOB. Then it made sense. Nonetheless, the wording of 7-5-7 is slightly ambiguous when dealing with its description of court. I would feel MUCH better if it included PLAYING court.

Lag time issue: I do not believe this is a situation where lag time comes into play. This was a designated spot throw-in with definite knowledge that the clock was at .3 second. Fortunately in my scenario, the timer did NOT start the clock. However, if he had, I would have insisted that the Referee direct us to start the throw-in with .3 on the clock. As an earlier post mentioned, the players should not be penalized for our (timer’s) error.

BkbRef wrote:


Originally posted by jbduke
Time is only to be chopped when a ball is legally touched.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The rule doesn't say that in NF, only in NCAA. It simply says the clock starts when the ball is touched, period.

-------------------------------------------

Sorry, didn't see the period the first time. Now I understand.

I'm still wondering where you find a timer that actually watches for the chop to start the clock instead of watching the game and starting it when he/she sees it touched? :)

5-9-4 ".....the clock shall be started when the ball touches, or is touched by, a player ON THE COURT after it is released by the thrower."

A player out of bounds is not considered to be "on the court", is he? I have no rule to quote which directly states this.

9-2-10 "No player shall be out of bounds when he touches or is touched by the ball after it has been released on a throw-in pass."

9 Penalty: "The ball becomes dead when the violation ....occurs...."

I read all this to say that the ball becomes dead in this case at the same instant that the clock should have started. If it is necessary for the two officials to confer in this case to reach this conclusion, and then put some time back on the clock, I would say that they would definitely be justified in doing so.

Exactly. The NCA addresses that the ball must be touched legally. The NFHS doesn't. What if the ball were kicked by a defender who is inbounds? Is that play any different than this one? The ball has been touched by a player who is inbounds. Hmmmm?

If the clock must start, and then stop, then the timer is allowed lag time to stop it.

I think a kick would result in the same bottom line. The violation occurred on the first touch of the ball which is when the clock should start. The ball becomes dead on the violation. I see no reason why the clock must start at all.
Now, we look at 5-10-1 "The referee may correct an obvious mistake by the timer to start or stop the clock properly only when he has definite information relative to the time involved." The definite information in this case is how much time was on the clock at the start of the throw in. If we are in the last second or two of the game, we would be more inclined to notice this, whereas if more time is left whatever times ticks off here would probably be considered insignificant. If we take the approach that the timer did not make an "obvious mistake" but started the clock on the chop in and then tried to stop it on the whistle for the violation, perhaps too late, then indeed lag time would be considered. I personally favor the idea that the clock should not have started and should be reset, but I see your line of reasoning as well. So it all comes down to which of us is the referee on this particular night and our ability to sell our interpretation to the coaches.:)

Technically, the way the rule is written, I believe the clock must start and stop. No matter, you're probably going to be able to sell the coach, who hasn't a clue either way.

Possibly...but, consider this...
Last year if a jumper "caught" the ball on a jump ball to begin the game, that jumper "gained" possesion at the same time he/she violated. Therefore, since there were no specific rules to interpret this, the team that caught the ball and violated did not get the ball for a throw-in and did not get the arrow. (Because they had first "possesion")

The NF decided, this year, to put a rule in covering this very scenario. In essence, the rule's intent was that a team cannot gain possesion and violate at the same time...just penalize for the violation.
Using this reasoning, could we say that we would penalize for the violation only and not the possesion on the throw-in, thus no time running off the clock?

In a perfect world, my hand is up ready to chop on the throw-in...I see the violation...I blow the whistle at the time I see the violation...I never had a chance to chop the time in.

Dude

Not true, dude.

From the 2001-2002 NFHS Case Book
6.3.1 SITUATION C
Following the jump between A1 and B1 to start the first quarter, the jump ball: (a) is touched by A2 and it then goes out of bounds; or (b) is touched simultaneously by A2 and B2 and it then goes out of bounds; or (c) is simultaneously controlled by A2 and B2; or (d) is caught by A1.

Ruling: In (a), Team B will have a throw-in. The alternating-possession procedure is established and the arrow is set toward A's basket when a player of Team B has the ball for the throw-in. Team A will have the first opportunity to throw-in when the procedure is used. In (b) and (c), A2 and B2 will jump in the center restraining circle regardless of where the ball went out or where the held ball occurred. In (d), Team B will have a throw-in because of the violation and also the arrow for the first alternating-possession throw-in as A1 had control when he/she caught the ball. (4-28-1)

The rule states that when the ball is touched on the court, the clock starts. It does not say that it starts when the ball is legally touched. That's why I drew the comparison to the kicking violation. Now, if you can provide a rule reference that disproves this, please do. I can't find anything that does.

...Well, that all sounds real nice there BktBallRef, but are you trying to "test" us again? ;)

You are using LAST YEAR'S Case book...check out New Rule 4-12-1... There is no player control when , during a jump ball, a jumper catches the ball prior to the ball touching the floor or a non-jumper, ...
Case Book 2002-03
*6.3.1 SITUATION C: Following the jump between A1 and B1 to start the first quarter, the jump ball:
(d) is caught by A1
Ruling: In (d), Team B will have a throw-in because of the violation and the arrow for the alternating possession will be pointed towards Team A's basket. (4-12-1)

Dude

Possibly...but, consider this...
Last year if a jumper "caught" the ball on a jump ball to begin the game, that jumper "gained" possesion at the same time he/she violated. Therefore, since there were no specific rules to interpret this, the team that caught the ball and violated did not get the ball for a throw-in and did not get the arrow. (Because they had first "possesion")

The NF decided, this year, to put a rule in covering this very scenario. In essence, the rule's intent was that a team cannot gain possesion and violate at the same time...just penalize for the violation.
[/B][/QUOTE]I agree completely with Tony that the above statement is not true.
The play was covered last year under R6-3-1,and was also interpreted completely under Casebook play 6.3.1SitC(d).That's seems like having pretty specific rules to me!The call has been the same for years.The Fed also did NOT put in a new rule this year.they simply changed the old rule.

I agree completely with Tony that the above statement is not true.
The play was covered last year under R6-3-1,and was also interpreted completely under Casebook play 6.3.1SitC(d).That's seems like having pretty specific rules to me!The call has been the same for years.The Fed also did NOT put in a new rule this year.they simply changed the old rule. [/B][/QUOTE]


...Huh?...Did you not see I quoted THIS YEAR'S case book...I think that is the rules we are playing with THIS YEAR!:rolleyes:

Dude

[Edited by RookieDude on Dec 1st, 2002 at 03:02 PM]

...Huh?...Did you not see I quoted THIS YEAR'S case book...I think that is the rules we are playing with THIS YEAR!:rolleyes:

[/B][/QUOTE]Your specific statement above says that there was no specific rule last year interpreting a jumper catching a jump ball.That statement is WRONG!!Last year's specific rule and interpretation covering this play were quoted to you above.
You also stated above that the FED decided to put in a rule this year to cover that play.That statement is WRONG,also!They changed the existing rule(already quoted) from the year before.
Read what you wrote originally.
We're not telling you that you're wrong about this year's case book play.We are telling you that this specific play WAS covered by rule last year.

Ok...gottcha...dang...and I was getting ready to dance in the streets, I thought I actually got one on the ol' pros.
Well, back to my original thought, even though I misstated "last years" rules...how about this year's rules?
Do you like my analogy of "this year's" rules concerning the violation and possession happening at the same time? Therefore, do not take time off the clock as was being discussed in the original sitch.
(Or is it "Apples and Oranges" in your opinion?)

Dude