New Case Book Ruling

[APHP]

The 2003-04 Case Book has changed a ruling from past years. Rule 5 Section 7 Art. 3 in 03-04 book reads as follows.
"Following a violation in the first extra period, the timer beckons the referee to the table. The timer informs the referee that by mistake the period started with less than four minutes on the clock. Ruling: The appropriate amount of time shall be added to reflect a four minutes period." In years past the ruling was "no correction is authorized". The new ruling does reflect the rule covering this: Rule 2, Section 5, Article 5--"correct obvious timing mistakes". Does seem odd to change it after all these years.

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by APHP
The 2003-04 Case Book has changed a ruling from past years. Rule 5 Section 7 Art. 3 in 03-04 book reads as follows.
"Following a violation in the first extra period, the timer beckons the referee to the table. The timer informs the referee that by mistake the period started with less than four minutes on the clock. Ruling: The appropriate amount of time shall be added to reflect a four minutes period." In years past the ruling was "no correction is authorized". The new ruling does reflect the rule covering this: Rule 2, Section 5, Article 5--"correct obvious timing mistakes". Does seem odd to change it after all these years.

Especially since WE haven't discussed it here on this board!!

[Kelvin green]

This is a common sense ruling--- Dont see it as much of a problem ---

Personally if I saw this in a game I'd be horrified- There are two officials they should check the clock before the ball is tossed to make sure it is right and then we should make sure the clock starts--- Go figure we should figure it out---

This ruling justs makes it fair that OT is the right length and that somebody does not get screwed because we were incompetent-- In th eold case ruling if it were three minutes and then discovered and no correction available we just may have cost a team the game...

My 250 dinar worth

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally posted by APHP
The 2003-04 Case Book has changed a ruling from past years. Rule 5 Section 7 Art. 3 in 03-04 book reads as follows.
"Following a violation in the first extra period, the timer beckons the referee to the table. The timer informs the referee that by mistake the period started with less than four minutes on the clock. Ruling: The appropriate amount of time shall be added to reflect a four minutes period." In years past the ruling was "no correction is authorized". The new ruling does reflect the rule covering this: Rule 2, Section 5, Article 5--"correct obvious timing mistakes". Does seem odd to change it after all these years.

This ruling brings the NFHS in line with the NCAA. The NCAA Casebook and A.R. has always been this way. But when the NFHS went from a three minute overtime to a four minute over the Casebook play being discussed here was added with the ruling that was replaced with the new ruling. I am happy that the NFHS made this change because the orginal ruling was not logical.

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by Kelvin green
Personally if I saw this in a game I'd be horrified- There are two officials they should check the clock before the ball is tossed to make sure it is right and then we should make sure the clock starts--- Go figure we should figure it out---

Yes, but it still happens. Sometimes it happens with 3 officials on the floor. Thank goodness it wasn't me.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally posted by BktBallRef

Yes, but it still happens. Sometimes it happens with 3 officials on the floor. Thank goodness it wasn't me.

Well said.