Start the clock....

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

And that is also why this action is timed!

Whether the action should be timed is certainly up for debate, but I fail to see how your reasoning here applies.

For me, if the same action that should cause the clock to start (ball being touched by player) also causes the clock to stop, then it's valid that no time should elapse and I tend to rule accordingly if I'm the official responsible for both.

I wouldn't make a correction either way, however, during a game.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Adam

Whether the action should be timed is certainly up for debate, but I fail to see how your reasoning here applies.

Because the throw-in location is now possibly a great distance away from where it was before and the action was not a throw-in violation. How do you account for that without any time coming off the clock?
A play took place which results in a new throw-in from a different location on the court. Doesn't that action need to be timed as part of the game (absent a rule such as the NCAA has)?
That is the logic being my thinking.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Because the throw-in location is now possibly a great distance away from where it was before and the action was not a throw-in violation. How do you account for that without any time coming off the clock?
A play took place which results in a new throw-in from a different location on the court. Doesn't that action need to be timed as part of the game (absent a rule such as the NCAA has)?
That is the logic being my thinking.

I don't see how the two are related....the location of the new throwin and the clock.

A foul or other non-throwin violation could occur somewhere else on the court before the clock starts. Such an occurrence could result in a throw-in at a different spot all without the clock starting.

I think that the clock starting is acceptable. I also think that the clock not starting is also acceptable. I'm not going to make any correction regardless of which of the two occurs short of the clock running and continuing to run too long.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Because the throw-in location is now possibly a great distance away from where it was before and the action was not a throw-in violation. How do you account for that without any time coming off the clock?

If the touch is a violation, the ball is dead. The clock does not start when the ball is dead.


period

[Nevadaref]

People should also consider the history of this NFHS rule.
I don't have time at the moment to post the documentation, so I'll edit this post later and do so.
The word legally was added to account for a rule change involving the kicking of the ball by a defender during an AP throw-in. Prior to that the clock started on any touch by a player from a throw-in pass. Now we must understand the wording to have only altered the timing rule for contact by a kick (or fist). Why? Because that is what the NFHS said when making the change.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Because the throw-in location is now possibly a great distance away from where it was before and the action was not a throw-in violation. How do you account for that without any time coming off the clock?
A play took place which results in a new throw-in from a different location on the court. Doesn't that action need to be timed as part of the game (absent a rule such as the NCAA has)?
That is the logic being my thinking.

Is your Enter key broken? I agree with your reasoning on the OOB violation location vs. throw-in violation location. I don't think the clock can run if the first touch is a violation. I think that's common sense, and even old interpretations or the "history" you talk about shouldn't apply now. There are some rules where the history matters but I don't think this is one of them.

Originally Posted by Adam

I wouldn't make a correction either way, however, during a game.

I think I would in a late game situation where the timer erroneously runs the clock. Could be important with only a few seconds left.

[APG]

I honestly think that if this question was presented to the NFHS powers that be, they would issue an interpretation saying that no time should come off the clock. It doesn't make logistical nor common sense for any time to run off the clock when a violation occurs simultaneously with the first touch.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by APG

I honestly think that if this question was presented to the NFHS powers that be, they would issue an interpretation saying that no time should come off the clock. It doesn't make logistical nor common sense for any time to run off the clock when a violation occurs simultaneously with the first touch.

In theory, yes, no time should come off the clock b/c no official should be chopping the clock in. In practice, officials are going to incorrectly chop the clock and timers are going to incorrectly start the clock.

Originally Posted by APG

I honestly think that if this question was presented to the NFHS powers that be, they would issue an interpretation saying that no time should come off the clock. It doesn't make logistical nor common sense for any time to run off the clock when a violation occurs simultaneously with the first touch.

We should get JAR on that immediately. Or just check what the NCAA-W's interpretation is and go with that... Get it??

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

In theory, yes, no time should come off the clock b/c no official should be chopping the clock in. In practice, officials are going to incorrectly chop the clock and timers are going to incorrectly start the clock.

Why is your default that the officials are incorrectly chopping the clock?
For decades the correct procedure has been to chop the clock. The default should be to chop.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

In theory, yes, no time should come off the clock b/c no official should be chopping the clock in. In practice, officials are going to incorrectly chop the clock and timers are going to incorrectly start the clock.

How is the official administering the throwin and chopping time supposed to know whether a player, on the other side of the court, is or is not OOB? The administering official is supposed to chop time in when the ball is touched. The official covering the line is to signal the OOB violation. There very likely will be a slight delay in the whistle. So, the timer starts the clock on the chop and stops it on the whistle. There really is no error there short of an explicit rule or case indicating that this is an error.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Why is your default that the officials are incorrectly chopping the clock?
For decades the correct procedure has been to chop the clock. The default should be to chop.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

How is the official administering the throwin and chopping time supposed to know whether a player, on the other side of the court, is or is not OOB? The administering official is supposed to chop time in when the ball is touched. The official covering the line is to signal the OOB violation. There very likely will be a slight delay in the whistle. So, the timer starts the clock on the chop and stops it on the whistle. There really is no error there short of an explicit rule or case indicating that this is an error.

IN THEORY, we should not be chopping the clock if the ball is illegally touched.

The official covering the line in question can also be the official administering the throw-in, they are not mutually exclusive. And if I'm covering the line, I'm going to know if the player is standing OOB.