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?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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?

The "you" here might be two different officials. The administering official may not be in any position to observed the OOB situation. Thus, time will be started by the administering official and will be stopped by the covering official.

If it is one official (me), I'm not going to start then stop the clock.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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?

Yes.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Yes.

Any way you slice it, you are starting the clock at a time when it should be stopping. I see no way to justify this.

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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?

On this play I know the answer for NCAAW would be no.

A group of officials and I discussed this scenario after a scrimmage a few years ago. We were split so I e-mailed Debbie Williamson. I e-mailed her again in Feb. of 2012 since I'd forgotten the interpretation:

From me: Good afternoon Ms. Williamson -

I hate asking you about a situation I know you answered for me a few years ago but I can't find your previous response in my old e-mail, so...

Situation: A1 makes a throw-in pass from the end line. A2 catches the pass with one foot on one of the sidelines.

Question 1: Is the ensuing throw-in by Team B at the end line due to the throw-in provisions having been violated or is it at the spot where A2 caught the ball due to the out-of-bounds provisions having been violated?

Question 2: Does any time run off the clock?

If memory serves me correctly you told me previously that the ensuing throw-in will be at the spot where A2 caught the ball and no time will run off the clock. I just wanted to make sure since the question came up again.

From Debbie Williamson: You have remembered correctly. That is still the interpretation at this time

Nothing has come out in the past two years indicating the interpretation has changed.

I think we should use some common sense here. If the clock has not started and the first touch results in a violation, I don't think the clock should have run. It's kinda like that "legal touch" language that ends a throw-ins.

Unless it's the end of the game and getting the time correct is paramount, I will probably ignore trifling timing errors.

Regarding the other issue, if a player catches the ball with a foot on the sideline, is that really a legal touch? Wouldn't the ball come back to the original throw-in spot just like if the ball never touched anyone inbounds before going out?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by AremRed

Regarding the other issue, if a player catches the ball with a foot on the sideline, is that really a legal touch? Wouldn't the ball come back to the original throw-in spot just like if the ball never touched anyone inbounds before going out?

It's an OOB violation, not a throw-in violation, so the next spot is where the ball was touched.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

It's an OOB violation, not a throw-in violation, so the next spot is where the ball was touched.

Taking a walk down Memory Lane, this used to be a throwin violation. If inbounder A1's throwin first touched B1, who was out of bounds, possession went to Team B at the spot of the original throwin. You heard right. Team B's possession.

This odd ruling was changed about thirty years ago. It might still confuse some more experienced (how's that for a euphemism) officials.

[Rich1]

If a player'slocation is determined by where he last touched the floor and if that location was OOB, then why would we not have a throw in from the same spot of the last throw in? I am thinking that this would be the same as a ball that was thrown down court and not touched before going out of bounds. In that case we come back to the original thrw in spot so it makes sense to me that we should do the same if the first plkayer to touch it is standing OOB. But, I am open to other opinions since all I am going on is my own "common sense".

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Rich1

If a player'slocation is determined by where he last touched the floor and if that location was OOB, then why would we not have a throw in from the same spot of the last throw in? I am thinking that this would be the same as a ball that was thrown down court and not touched before going out of bounds. In that case we come back to the original thrw in spot so it makes sense to me that we should do the same if the first plkayer to touch it is standing OOB. But, I am open to other opinions since all I am going on is my own "common sense".

This is the problem with using common sense when there are rules to use instead (not a knock on you Rich, lots of us try to do it).

In the rule book, throw in violations are separate from OOB violations, and the spot of the throw in is different for each.

A throw in violation occurs if the thrower fails to throw the ball so that it touches a player before going out of bounds. If another player catches the ball, but is standing out of bounds, the thrower has done his job. It is not, therefore, a throw in violation.

The player who catches the ball, however, has committed an OOB violation, so the throw in spot is determined accordingly.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

On this play I know the answer for NCAAW would be no.

As posted above in this thread, the text of the NCAA rule is different from that of the NFHS. The NCAA specifies that the touch must be by an "inbounds player" while the NFHS does not have such a requirement.

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

As posted above in this thread, the text of the NCAA rule is different from that of the NFHS. The NCAA specifies that the touch must be by an "inbounds player" while the NFHS does not have such a requirement.

I'll go back to the "legally touched" part of the NFHS rule as to why the clock shouldn't start. If a player touches the ball while standing on a sideline or endline it's a violation, which is not a legal touch of the ball.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

I'll go back to the "legally touched" part of the NFHS rule as to why the clock shouldn't start. If a player touches the ball while standing on a sideline or endline it's a violation, which is not a legal touch of the ball.

And on the most basic level that incorrect understanding is what I've consistently posted against in this entire thread. The touching of the ball itself is not illegal, such as a kick would be. Rather the player is breaking some other rule by where he is standing.

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

And on the most basic level that incorrect understanding is what I've consistently posted against in this entire thread. The touching of the ball itself is not illegal, such as a kick would be. Rather the player is breaking some other rule by where he is standing.

So NFHS 9-3-2 (No player shall be out of bounds when he/she touches or is touched by the ball after it has been released on a throw-in pass) means the touching isn't illegal? That's where we part company. In that particular instance the touching is illegal and the rule supports that idea.

By the way, if you're going to run time off the clock in the case of a a player catching a throw-in while standing OOB how much time should be run off? There's also nothing in the rules calling for an automatic run-off of, say, 0.3 seconds when a player contacts the ball.

This is a case of a touch and a violation taking place simultaneously. While the rule book doesn't always deal in logic, running the clock in this situation doesn't seem logical.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

So NFHS 9-3-2 (No player shall be out of bounds when he/she touches or is touched by the ball after it has been released on a throw-in pass) means the touching isn't illegal? That's where we part company. In that particular instance the touching is illegal and the rule supports that idea.

By the way, if you're going to run time off the clock in the case of a a player catching a throw-in while standing OOB how much time should be run off? There's also nothing in the rules calling for an automatic run-off of, say, 0.3 seconds when a player contacts the ball.

This is a case of a touch and a violation taking place simultaneously. While the rule book doesn't always deal in logic, running the clock in this situation doesn't seem logical.

The clock question really isn't all that different than the situation where the ball is thrown inbounds and is touched inbounds where it is immediately knocked OOB. We all know the clock should have started and then stopped but if no time has elapsed what do you do? Usually...nothing.

The point of the matter is that one official properly indicates that the clock should start and the timer does so. Another official covering the line where the ball is thrown, a moment later, indicates that the clock should stop...and the timer does so. I just don't see where there is an error. Everyone did what they were supposed to do. Short of a rule that says that it is an error to do what you're supposed to do, I see this as just a quirk in the rules and coverages.