Endgame controversy in No VA

[justacoach]

Score 78-77 Team A ahead with 2/10ths of a second on clock. During TO, coach and asst coach of team A reconfirm with the officials that there is insufficient time for 'catch and shoot'.

Read the article below to see how it plays out over the next several days...

Controversial call raises questions about VHSL -- FairfaxTimes.com

Does anyone work in a state that would support setting aside the outcome of such a game, regular season or post season?

[JetMetFan]

Thank goodness for cell phone cameras and YouTube.

[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

[deecee]

Originally Posted by 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.

+1. I think I saw the trail was wearing a belt.

[APG]

This is exactly why when there's a timeout in a situation like this, the crew gets together and discusses end of game situations...in this case...everyone should remind each other...no catch and shoot with .2 on the clock

[deecee]

Originally Posted by APG

This is exactly why when there's a timeout in a situation like this, the crew gets together and discusses end of game situations...in this case...everyone should remind either other...no catch and shoot with .2 on the clock

Or how about at the varsity level this should be known, and doesn't really need repeating. Instead court coverage should be the conversation.

[APG]

Originally Posted by deecee

Or how about at the varsity level this should be known, and doesn't really need repeating. Instead court coverage should be the conversation.

I can't imagine mentioning the catch and shoot rule would take so much time that you can't mention it and still go over court coverage.

[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

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by APG

I can't imagine mentioning the catch and shoot rule would take so much time that you can't mention it and still go over court coverage.

The other part of this whole thing that just doesn’t compute is…okay, everyone had a brain f*** when the shot went up. Hard to believe but stuff happens. So the shot goes in and everyone on the crew…just…leaves? Everyone completely forgot before, after and during the shot that there was 0:00.2 on the clock when the play began? That’s tough to even fathom.

Even if they stay out there and have to wave it off they’re not going to get a beef from the home HC because *he* knew a catch-and-shoot wasn’t on the menu.

Originally Posted by justacoach

Does anyone work in a state that would support setting aside the outcome of such a game, regular season or post season?

That's tough to do because you'd have teams lining up outside the state association's door to overturn results because of what they thought was "an obvious error by an official." That's why most protests aren't allowed. I think in this case they could argue a rule was ignored or misapplied - as opposed to an official's error in judgment - but it would still be tough.

[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?