Start the clock....

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

If the ball is tapped (with one hand) and then caught -- the clock runs.

....

The first touch would be legal and therefore not apply to the question at hand. Catching the ball with 2 hands would fall in the this category.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

The first touch would be legal and therefore not apply to the question at hand. Catching the ball with 2 hands would fall in the this category.

Agreed -- just was trying to be sure we were all discussing the same play (esp. since I've never seen anyone even go for the "initial" touch with two hands)

[JetMetFan]

It happened once in a varsity game but I had it a few times in MS games (rec or otherwise), too. The scenario was always both jumpers missed the tap and before the ball hit the floor - obviously - one of the jumpers panicked and caught the ball. Then there would be that pregnant pause of "What the heck do we do now?" before the jumper dropped the ball as though it was a hand grenade.

[Nevadaref]

There were a few case plays/interps issued when the AP arrow rule was altered so that a team retained the arrow if the opponent kicked the ball on the initial touch of the throw-in pass.

One of the plays dealt with a player catching/touching the throw-in pass while standing on a boundary line. It said the touching was legal and the arrow switched, but it was an OOB violation and the opponent's ball at that new location.

From the above play, one can deduce that the NFHS ruling is that touching the ball with the hands (not a closed fist) is a legal action in itself. There may be other restrictions such as OOB, jump ball parameters, BI/GT, etc. which cause the touch to be a violation, but that doesn't mean that the touch isn't proper.

It may be parsing in a legal or exercise in mental logic, but that's the rationale for why such a touch would be timed.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

There were a few case plays/interps issued when the AP arrow rule was altered so that a team retained the arrow if the opponent kicked the ball on the initial touch of the throw-in pass.

One of the plays dealt with a player catching/touching the throw-in pass while standing on a boundary line. It said the touching was legal and the arrow switched, but it was an OOB violation and the opponent's ball at that new location.

From the above play, one can deduce that the NFHS ruling is that touching the ball with the hands (not a closed fist) is a legal action in itself. There may be other restrictions such as OOB, jump ball parameters, BI/GT, etc. which cause the touch to be a violation, but that doesn't mean that the touch isn't proper.

It may be parsing in a legal or exercise in mental logic, but that's the rationale for why such a touch would be timed.

What do you mean the "touch would be timed"?

If the touch is a violation, the clock, if running, stops. If it isn't running, it doesn't start.

I seem to remember a spirited discussion with Jurassic Referee about this years ago.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by just another ref

What do you mean the "touch would be timed"?

If the touch is a violation, the clock, if running, stops. If it isn't running, it doesn't start.

I seem to remember a spirited discussion with Jurassic Referee about this years ago.

I disagree with your statement here.
The rules state that the clock starts on the touch and stops when the violation is whistled. For a kick the NFHS issued a specific statement to not start the clock.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I disagree with your statement here.
The rules state that the clock starts on the touch and stops when the violation is whistled. For a kick the NFHS issued a specific statement to not start the clock.

5-8-1: .......the clock, if running, shall be stopped when an official signals a violation.

This tells me that if it is not running there's nothing to do.

Are you saying that if the throw-in pass is caught by a player standing on the sideline you will chop the clock in and then signal the violation?