Endgame controversy in No VA

[JetMetFan]

You hate to be “holier than thou” and say everyone on that crew needs to be docked a game for messing that up, but…everyone on that crew needs to be docked a game for messing that up.

Regardless of whether the crew told the visiting HC the home team couldn’t score on a catch-and-shoot, there isn’t much else for the officials to talk about among themselves during the time-out other than the time on the clock and the relevant rule.

[JRutledge]

A couple things about the article, which for me makes me question a lot of things about the writer or was not clear to someone not from that area.

First of all this is not a new rule that came from the NCAA or NBA as the article stated. This rule has been around in NF Rules for over 10 years. I am not sure the rule ever changed in my career that I have been working. And the shot clock changes had nothing to do with the current NF Rule.

Did the artcle say, "

Metress knew that the outcome of the game could only be decided on the court in the moments after the final whistle. He remained on the floor waiting for an official to return, but the four men in stripes had packed it in for good.

Does that mean that games in that area have an alternate?

If that is the case, how does no one on the crew not know that rule?

Peace

[Jesse James]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

A couple things about the article, which for me makes me question a lot of things about the writer or was not clear to someone not from that area.

First of all this is not a new rule that came from the NCAA or NBA as the article stated. This rule has been around in NF Rules for over 10 years. I am not sure the rule ever changed in my career that I have been working. And the shot clock changes had nothing to do with the current NF Rule.

Did the artcle say, "

Does that mean that games in that area have an alternate?

If that is the case, how does no one on the crew not know that rule?

Peace

The writer never alludes to this being a new rule. Completely the opposite.

I would guess he certainly meant "game clock modifications" in the 1990's regarding tenths of seconds, instead of shot clock--other than that it's a extremely well-detailed article by a sportswriter, with regard to rule delineation.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Jesse James

The writer never alludes to this being a new rule. Completely the opposite.

I would guess he certainly meant "game clock modifications" in the 1990's regarding tenths of seconds, instead of shot clock--other than that it's a extremely well-detailed article by a sportswriter, with regard to rule delineation.

This is a direct quote from the article.

Metress, now in his 30th year coaching high school ball in Northern Virginia, had encountered this scenario before. It summoned a rule that took hold at the high school, college and professional levels when shot clocks were modified to include tenths of a second in the early 1990s. According to Section 5-2-5 of the National Federation of High Schools rule book, “When play is resumed with a throw-in or free throw and three-tenths (.3) of a second or less remains on the clock, the player may not gain control of the ball and try for a field goal. In this situation, only a tap could score.”

Maybe that does not completely suggest it is a new rule, but the rule for the shcot clocks to include tenths of a second is an NBA change a few years ago. NCAA has never change that rule or required tenths of a second on the shot clock.

The current NF rule came around the time when a Trent Tucker from the NBA (The Knicks) shot a game winner with less than .3 seconds on the clock against the Bulls. Soon after the NBA looked into the likelyihood of this and change the rule to .3. I will have to do a little more research on the details, but this did not have anything to do with the shot clock. The NF soon followed like either before I became an official or right after in the mid-90s.

The NBA rule is actually called the Trent Tucker Rule. Here is the link to some of the information. Trent Tucker Rule

Peace

[golfdesigner]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

This is a direct quote from the article.

The current NF rule came around the time when a Trent Tucker from the NBA (The Knicks) shot a game winner with less than .3 seconds on the clock against the Bulls. Soon after the NBA looked into the likelyihood of this and change the rule to .3. I will have to do a little more research on the details, but this did not have anything to do with the shot clock. The NF soon followed like either before I became an official or right after in the mid-90s.

The NBA rule is actually called the Trent Tucker Rule. Here is the link to some of the information. Trent Tucker Rule

Peace

I also remember a similar situation a number of years ago (2002), Wisconsin at Michigan State I think, a shot with under 0.2 on the clock by Michigan State was disallowed and Wisconsin won by 1. The Badger win ended a long home win streak by Michigan State.

Link to article:
Lawrence Journal-World - Google News Archive Search
So maybe the NBA rule and the NCAA/NFHS rule may have similar parentage.

[justacoach]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Does that mean that games in that area have an alternate?

No, the covering association provided the 3 floor officials and a trained clock operator.

[Raymond]

The VHSL has made up its own rules on the fly before, now all of a sudden they have to follow the handbook.

But I digress.

Something is missing here. If the R did confirm with the coach that no try or tap can score, why did he allow the basket?

Additionally, why is the coach telling his players to guard "only the players the could receive a lob pass"? If I were a coach (and trusted my referees) I wouldn't even have my players on that half of the court. No try or tap can score, so why bother?

[RookieDude]

Originally Posted by AremRed

No try or tap can score, so why bother?

A tap could score...

or are you saying because the official said a tap couldn't score... so why bother?

Originally Posted by RookieDude

A tap could score...

or are you saying because the official said a tap couldn't score... so why bother?

Yeah a tap can score. If the offensive team knew that they probably would have attempted one, which made the defensive coach say only guard the lob and (probably) around the basket.

My bigger point is the disconnect between what the coach 'confirmed' and what the crew allowed.

[Jesse James]

Originally Posted by AremRed

Something is missing here. If the R did confirm with the coach that no try or tap can score, why did he allow the basket?

Additionally, why is the coach telling his players to guard "only the players the could receive a lob pass"? If I were a coach (and trusted my referees) I wouldn't even have my players on that half of the court. No try or tap can score, so why bother?

Read again

The quote from the article:

..."Lake Braddock coach Brian Metress had just called timeout to confirm with the referee that the only shot Annandale could get off in time WAS a tip. According to Metress, the referee confirmed it"...

[grunewar]

My Association. Long discussion at the Meeting the other night. In this day and age of videos and social media, there is no hiding. We blew it. We are moving on as best we can and going forward.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by AremRed

Something is missing here. If the R did confirm with the coach that no try or tap can score, why did he allow the basket?

Additionally, why is the coach telling his players to guard "only the players the could receive a lob pass"? If I were a coach (and trusted my referees) I wouldn't even have my players on that half of the court. No try or tap can score, so why bother?

It was a 2 point game, the defensive team put 3 tall players in the paint to prevent any type of lob. The in-bounder thus chose to throw it to his teammate behind the 3-point line.

[JugglingReferee]

The times are changing, and they have been.

With YT, cell phone video, social media, etc, there has never been a greater responsibility to get it right. That's why training, etc. is so important.

Having said that, we are still human and make mistakes. None of us is Scott Foster or Monty McCutchen.

I would definitely support a Fed rule, or a state rule, that certain specific instances of end-of-game plays are reviewable by a committee after the fact. This would be one of them. Reverse the on-court decision of allowing the basket and change the outcome of the game.

[ilyazhito]

Originally Posted by justacoach

No, the covering association provided the 3 floor officials and a trained clock operator.

The clock operator is also an official, and is the alternate should one of the 3 floor officials be unable to continue. Therefore, the clock operator also wears a uniform, including the striped shirt. That is why the article author noted that there were 4 men in stripes.