![]() |
Greetings All!
7th grade boys; Home team (White) down by 3 pts, loses ball OOB on their baseline, .3 second on clock. Visitors (blue) call time out to set up inbound play. After time-out Blue is administered the ball for throw-in. At count of 4, inbounder makes a high and long pass to his teammate at sideline (division line). B2 clearly steps on OOB line as he leaps to make the catch. (Whistle blown) Ball is returned to the original throw-in spot (White baseline) for a White throw-in. White calls time to set up inbound play. Additional information to consider in this equation: With 2.3 on the clock at the end of the first half, the timer let the hometeam (White) inbound the ball, make a pass to another teammate, A3 makes a two bounce dribble around a defender and launched a 22 foot shot. Buzzer did not sound until after the ball made contact on the rim. Bottomline: Anticipate VERY favorable clock "management" Also, I have officiated games with the Blue coach and I know that he is aware that you cannot have a legal shot with .3 or less on the clock. Bottomline: Anticipate a coach who could be very PO'd if this goes into OT. What do you do in this situation? I will post what we did after responses are made. |
Well with that little of time, according to the rule book, all you can have is a "tap". As soon as either team does more than that, i.e. a catch or grasp of any kind, blow your whistle, and call the game. Simple as that.
|
Quote:
Eliminates a lot of discussion. Just my thought. iven the situation, I would go off precise knowledge of the time and not award points on anything but a tap by the home team. |
Wouldn't white's throw in be at the spot blue stepped out of bounce (sideline)? Or was blue OOB to begin with (in that case, bring it back to original throw in spot)?
A suggestion to do regarding .3 showing on the clock: Inform both coaches that they only way a basket will be scored is by tap only. Anything else will result in game being over regardless of the timer/horn. |
Clarification
Quote:
Meaning he was OOB BEFORE he made contact with the ball. |
JLK is correct.
Quote:
As far as the inbounds play goes, JR is correct. |
Quote:
|
Here is what my partner and I did...
Additional information:
I know the coach of Blue (visiting team) fairly well and feel safe in saying that he is not going to make an issue if the teams play out the clock. I also have a good rapport with the home coach. This game has had countless lead changes throughout... neither team led by more than 6 points. During the home team's last timeout, I approached the Referee and reminded him that according to the rules, there is not enough time to attempt a legal shot with .3 second or less. The R is doing his 1st game of the year and I had been the R in the B game (1st game of the night). His decision was to let them "play it." I agreed. What happened? A1 inbounds the ball to opposite corner. A2 pumps up a 3-pt shot that bangs off the rim as the horn sounds. Immediately following the horn, the visiting coach raced over and adamantly thanked us for letting the kids finish the game. If it had been a HS game, I would not have had any qualms about strictly adhering to the letter of the rule. In fact, I would have insisted on it. |
I don't understand what decision there is to make about letting them play it. If there is time, and it is a three point game, anything can happen. How about a foul on team with lead before ball is inbounded, results in 1 and bonus FTs, 1st FT sunk, second FT missed and tapped in, tie game. And don't think the foul may not happen. Some rocket scientist coach may decide that he heard Billy Packer suggest a foul before the inbounds once on tv, blah blah blah. . .
As you can probably guess, I am not a big fan of telling the coaches the rules before the inbounds. Make them know the rules and decide their strategy. And let the game end how it will. Just my take on this one. |
Here is what willie really did:) he stopped the game and called kinny, aka "mr. basketball offical" and confered with him on what to do and then did the exact opposite:) didn't you? willie and i reffed a lot of ball together at one point in time and whenever i have the opportunity to give him shi#, i do it (see signature) |
HAWKS COACH & CMON
HAWKS COACH...
We did pretty much as you stated. Nothing was mentioned to the coaches. And as you indicated, anything COULD have happened; especially at the 7th Grade level. CMON... Blue was your hometown team. No, "Mr. Basketball" was the last person I thought about consulting. Have a great Thanksgiving everyone!!! |
But Willie,
You and your partner still messed up the play by awarding the throw-in on the endline. As some others have said, the proper spot would have been near the division line where the player violated. While this is a throw-in violation, and you were right not to start the clock, you must adhere to the nearest spot provision of the rule. Just consider if this player had stepped OOB at the opposite endline while jumping to catch a length-of-the-court throw-in pass, the opposing team would get a real advantage if you brought the throw-in all the way back down the court with very little time remaining. If one is going to pull out the obscure from the rules book, then one had better know the whole thing! |
Re: HAWKS COACH & CMON
Quote:
http://www.gifs.net/animate/ag_0180.gif |
Quote:
|
Quote:
If the pass (otherwise legal) touches a player, it's a legal throw-in. The touching may be (and is, in the case being discussed) a violation. |
Quote:
So in this case, should the clock run at all? |
No. Violation occurred the same moment the ball was touched by Player B who was OOB.
|
Lag time question
Trail chops clock, lead sees violation and blows whistle. Between two signals, time expires. Does lag time apply, or does .3 go back on clock?
|
Trail shouldn't chop clock until the ball is touched by a player on the court. If my partner chopped early, I'd have the clock reset to .3 seconds.
|
I am saying that trail chops as ball is touched and timer reacts to that chop. Whistle happens immediately after, timer reacts after horn has sounded. Does lag time come into play, or do you say clock never should have started (NFHS-college and pro it is clear that the clock is reset).
|
I agree with you. Clock never should have started...no lag time. Reset clock to .3 secs.
|
Quote:
I don't think the NFHS rule is as clear as the NCAA rule. NCAA 5-11-4 When play is resumed by a throw-in, the game clock and shot clock shall be started when the ball is legally touched by or touches a player on the playing court. NFHS 5-9-4 If play is resumed by a throw-in, the clock shall be started when the ball touches, or is touched by, a player on [/b]the court after it is released by the thrower. The NFHS rule does not have the requirement that the ball be legally touched. Is it implied? You would think so but the rule doesn't state that. Also, what's the difference in the playing court vs the court? Rule 1 describes the playing court as being the inbounds area. It would seem that the court includes inbounds and OOB areas. Common sense would dictate that no time runs off the clock, but I'm not sure the rules support it. The trail starts the clock when the ball is touched on the court. He has no way of knowing, in many cases, whether the player is OOB or not. |
I was referring to the difference between having a lag time rule in NFHS and not having one in college and pro. In college and pro, since you know that the violation happended at the precise moment as the touch, you can reset the clock. But because of the lag time rule, it seems that time could expire in NFHS, even though we know it should not have happened. I am for putting the time back on in all cases, but I do not know that strict interpretation of lag time allows it in NFHS.
So I am saying the same thing - that despite common sense, it seems that the trail's signal could start the clock, late reaction to the lead's whistle would allow .3 seconds to go by, and lag time could create a situation where the horn goes off and the game is legally over. [Edited by Hawks Coach on Nov 29th, 2002 at 10:37 PM] |
Thanks for the clarification, Coach. I misunderstood your point.
|
Coach,
In this situation, my understanding is that the lag time provision does not apply, as time was never properly chopped in. Time is only to be chopped when a ball is legally touched. Since that condition is not met, it seems to me that we may reset the clock here with impunity. If we are in violent agreement, I apologize. jb |
Lady and Gents,
I believe that your whole discussion about lag time on this play is moot since the violation occurs BEFORE the ball is touched. NFHS 9-2-12 . . . No teammate of the thrower shall be out of bounds after a designated-spot throw-in begins. Therefore, it is clear that if the player is called for stepping on the sideline as he jumps to catch the pass, the violation occurs at this point and no time should run off the clock. If any does, simply put it back on. Rainmaker, this rule is the reason that I wrote, in an earlier post, WillieBfree and his partner should have given the ball to the other team for a division line throw-in and not an endline throw-in. If you re-read his original post, he makes it clear that this was a designated-spot throw-in when he tells us that the team lost the ball out of bounds on the endline. Also, 9-2-12 should make it clear that it is the teammate of the thrower, not the thrower himself, who has violated in this case. Hence, the throw-in is at the spot of the violation near the division line. I'll end with a comment that if this throw-in had been after a goal or an awarded goal, we probably have to go by 9-2-10 since it is no longer a designated-spot throw-in. Then we can get into the lag time dicussion. [Edited by nevadaref on Nov 30th, 2002 at 01:21 AM] |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
B][/QUOTE]So,Nevada,if A1 is making a throw in at his own endline,and A2,while running downcourt,inadvertantly steps on a sideline at center court,you are going to immediately blow your whistle and give the ball to B at center court for A's violation of rule9-2-12--even if the ball is still in A1's hands? I'd like to be there to see that one!:D [/B][/QUOTE]
JR, I understand that this may be pushing the envelope, but according to the rule AS WRITTEN this is a violation, and the penalty is just as you have described. Now, in a game I didn't see the player step OOB. Sorry, coach must have missed it. But for a rules exam.... I believe this is a case where my youth is a problem. I do not know the history of this rule. I don't have the handbooks going back to 1962, or the comments that accompanied this rule's inclusion to the rules book. Perhaps you could shed some light here! Personally, I would like to know if the intent of 9-2-12 was only to distinguish a designated-spot throw-in from one where the team may run the entire endline. More specifically, was the restriction on being OOB meant to apply to the whole court or just the endline. And how about a teammate stepping OOB at the division line during a throw-in that is after a goal? Is this a violation or not? In short, I may be missing the spirit of this rule because I probably wasn't born when it was written! |
Quote:
In short, I may be missing the spirit of this rule because I probably wasn't born when it was written! [/B][/QUOTE]1)Yup,R9-2-12 is used for spot throw ins only anywhere on the floor,endline or sideline.The violation is intended to be for a team mate to be deliberately OOB after the designated thrower in is given the ball.The key word is "deliberately".If you have any doubts,don't call anything.This is usually called on a spot throw-in when the thrower in A1 passes the ball to A2(who is also OOB),and A2 then passes the ball in bounds to another teammate.Violation. Also,don't confuse this with R10-3-4,which is a T for a player using the OOB's to gain an advantage.Completely different plays. 2)A teammate of the thrower in inadvertantly stepping OOB is never a violation.The only violation that you can get on this play is if that player touches the throw in before he legally returns in bounds.If he does,then that player caused the ball to go OOB. Btw,what makes you think that I was born when these rules were first written? http://www.gifs.net/animate/history.gif |
Quote:
|
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 (timers) 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? :)
|
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
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.
|
Quote:
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 |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
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 |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
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] |
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: [/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 |
Dude, the two plays have nothing to do with each other.
You stated that the situation was not covered by rule last year and I presented the case book play which proved you wrong. Now, we're past that play. Back to the original: 5-9-4 If play is resumed by a throw-in, 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. Whether the ball is kicked or touched OOB on the initial contact, the clock starts when the ball is touched. And no, I'm not playing devil's advocate on this one. This is the rule. No one has provided any reference that proves different. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Long thread and I may have missed someone saying this:
Since there was a time - out, 2 actually, did anyone go over to the person operating the clock and go over their responsibilities? I am assuming the two officials conversed about who had the shot etc, but it sounds like no one talked to the clock keeper. IMHO, it would go along way to avoiding timing conflict. Simply tell the clock operator "Don't Start the Clock until you see a)Me, b) Partner chop the clock." Make sure they are only looking at the official who has the clock. The coaches will see this and be moderately appeased if there are any timing difficulties, plus it will take some of the pressure off the clock operator. |
Quote:
|
Haven't we gone over this situation about 100,000 times before?
Anyone ever think of writing in to the NFHS and getting a definitive interp on this? (Hint, hint, MTD, Sr.) |
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:13am. |