Timing question

[MD Longhorn]

Trying to settle an argument.

For purposes of this discussion, assume perfect knowledge of the clock at all times mentioned, including TV replay if necessary.

Shooter begins to elevate with 0.2 seconds on the clock, and is fouled with 0.1 seconds on the clock. Fully 1 second later the still airborne shooter releases the ball, and it goes in.

Count the basket?

Mention ruleset if it makes a difference. Mention rule or caseplay if it applies.

[walt]

The basket doesn't count because the ball was not released prior to time expiring. However, since he was in the act of shooting when the foul occurred, two (or three) free throws are awarded. If the ball was in flight when time expired, count it.

[JeffM]

No basket, but shoot free throws (unless it is end of the game and free throws are meaningless).

[deecee]

Count the basket, shooter to the line for 1 shot, .1 seconds on the clock.

Although I would hope that the official would have better game awareness than calling this foul, unless its a hatchet job, because in reality this shot "technically" won't count had the foul not occur. Even though I strongly believe in calling a foul when it occurs, there are rare instances where common sense, and awareness needs to be present.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by deecee

Although I would hope that the official would have better game awareness than calling this foul, unless its a hatchet job, because in reality this shot "technically" won't count had the foul not occur. Even though I strongly believe in calling a foul when it occurs, there are rare instances where common sense, and awareness needs to be present.

Could you explain this further please?

[APG]

Originally Posted by walt

The basket doesn't count because the ball was not released prior to time expiring. However, since he was in the act of shooting when the foul occurred, two (or three) free throws are awarded. If the ball was in flight when time expired, count it.

Originally Posted by JeffM

No basket, but shoot free throws (unless it is end of the game and free throws are meaningless).

This is only true if you don't have definite knowledge as to what to put on the clock. In the OP, the clock erroneously expired and you have the definite knowledge as to how much time is on the clock.

In this case, count the basket and put .1 on the clock.

[deecee]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Could you explain this further please?

Sometimes lack of awareness and maybe a desire to show that you know the rules puts an official in predicaments that they (heck not many really) may be ill-equipped to handle.

Short of a very obvious foul in such an instance I don't see why an official would want to call something ticky-tacky.

In this instance barring a foul the shot would be waved off. Why reward the offense for marginal contact?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by deecee

Sometimes lack of awareness and maybe a desire to show that you know the rules puts an official in predicaments that they (heck not many really) may be ill-equipped to handle.

Short of a very obvious foul in such an instance I don't see why an official would want to call something ticky-tacky.

In this instance barring a foul the shot would be waved off. Why reward the offense for marginal contact?

Ignoring the coach-speak, if the defense commits a foul on that shot, I'm leaning towards assuming the offense might have released the shot in time. The rule isn't that hard to administer (people have been shooting free throws with time expired since the invention of free throws.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by deecee

Sometimes lack of awareness and maybe a desire to show that you know the rules puts an official in predicaments that they (heck not many really) may be ill-equipped to handle.

Short of a very obvious foul in such an instance I don't see why an official would want to call something ticky-tacky.

In this instance barring a foul the shot would be waved off. Why reward the offense for marginal contact?

Nowhere in the OP does it say the foul was "ticky-tacky" or "marginal."

And, those types of contact shouldn't (generally) be called at any time.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by deecee

In this instance barring a foul the shot would be waved off. Why reward the offense for marginal contact?

If this comment is made with respect to the OP, then you are reading additional info into that post. It does not state that the clock was stopped and play resumed with 0.2 on the game clock.
It merely tells us that the shooter begins his motion at that time.

[LRZ]

I don't have a problem calling the foul in such a situation.

And remember that, under NFHS, if the last FT is missed, a FG can only be scored on a tap, not a rebound and try. Rule 5-2-5.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Trying to settle an argument.

For purposes of this discussion, assume perfect knowledge of the clock at all times mentioned, including TV replay if necessary.

Shooter begins to elevate with 0.2 seconds on the clock, and is fouled with 0.1 seconds on the clock. Fully 1 second later the still airborne shooter releases the ball, and it goes in.

Count the basket?

Mention ruleset if it makes a difference. Mention rule or caseplay if it applies.

With replay, you have definite knowledge. The clock should stop on the foul.

Count the basket, 1 shot, put the .1 back up on the clock.

[MD Longhorn]

OK ... now that we have (nearly) unanimous agreement on that ...

Same situation - no replay - no definite knowledge of exactly how much time was on the clock ... just the order of events - shot starts; foul happens; buzzer sounds; then noticably after the buzzer --- shot leaves the shooter's hand and then goes in.

[LRZ]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

OK ... now that we have (nearly) unanimous agreement on that ...

Same situation - no replay - no definite knowledge of exactly how much time was on the clock ... just the order of events - shot starts; foul happens; buzzer sounds; then noticably after the buzzer --- shot leaves the shooter's hand and then goes in.

Unless I'm missing something, see Walt's and Jeff's answers at #2 and #3, respectively.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by LRZ

Unless I'm missing something, see Walt's and Jeff's answers at #2 and #3, respectively.

You are. Walt's and JEff's answers are incorrect.