Lane Violation and Clock issue

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by AremRed

Never said it was not allowed, just that it was not required.

No, you said a little more than that. You said that is wasn't "required by rule". What rule doesn't require a visible count in low clock situations? Citation please.

NFHS 2-7-9: The officials shall conduct the game in accordance with the rules. This includes: Silently and visibly counting seconds to administer the throw-in, free-throw, backcourt, and closely-guarded rules.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

No, you said a little more than that. You said that is wasn't "required by rule". What rule doesn't require a visible count in low clock situations? Citation please.

NFHS 2-7-9: The officials shall conduct the game in accordance with the rules. This includes: Silently and visibly counting seconds to administer the throw-in, free-throw, backcourt, and closely-guarded rules.

No, you are reading in to what I wrote.

There is no rule that requires a count in low-clock situations where there is no count for another reason (backcourt count, closely guarded count, etc.). In other words, no count is required by rule.

I never said that a silent or visible count is not allowed in low-clock situations, that is what you assumed. No count required by rule ≠ rule requires no count.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

No, you said a little more than that. You said that is wasn't "required by rule". What rule doesn't require a visible count in low clock situations? Citation please.

NFHS 2-7-9: The officials shall conduct the game in accordance with the rules. This includes: Silently and visibly counting seconds to administer the throw-in, free-throw, backcourt, and closely-guarded rules.

He's right. It's not required by rule. You won't find a rule anywhere that "doesn't require" anything. What you will find is a rule that lays out the times a visual count is required (a series of rules, actually), and you won't find the OP in that list. Thus, it's not required by rule.

Now I realize you're from the land of "Nothing's Really Optional," but you know the difference, right?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Adam

What you will find is a rule that lays out the times a visual count is required (a series of rules, actually), and you won't find the OP in that list.

So, since there can't be a backcourt violation with nine seconds left, or a five second closely guarded violation with four seconds left, we don't count?

Yeah. OK.

It's just that I've never, in thirty-three years, heard about a rule, or mechanic, that recommends us to not visibly, and silently, count under these situations.

Nine seconds left. Throwin in the backcourt. Unbeknown to the officials, the clock operator doesn't start the clock (mistake number one) for five seconds, which is not noticed by the inattentive officials (mistake number 2), so the trail, not visibly, and silently counting, as AremRed claims is the correct rule, or mechanic, allows the player to dribble the ball for up to fourteen seconds in the backcourt without a violation (mistake number three)?

As Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.'s old friend, Billy Shakespeare, once said, "Something is rotten in the state of Denmark".

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Adam

He's right. It's not required by rule. You won't find a rule anywhere that "doesn't require" anything. What you will find is a rule that lays out the times a visual count is required (a series of rules, actually), and you won't find the OP in that list. Thus, it's not required by rule.

Actually, I don't think you'll find such a "rule" at all. There are no visible counts that are required by the rules. The rules only require a count, without mention of visibility. Our mechanics (guidelines) tell us to visibly count, but it isn't a rule. All of the rule-based counts for which we use a visible count are still valid even if not visible. A 10 second violation is still a 10 second violation whether the officials was visibly counting or not. The fact that we make it visible is largely to inform someone that is observing that we really are counting...and to aid us in pacing the count.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

There are no visible counts that are required by the rules. The rules only require a count, without mention of visibility.

There aren't?

Check out NFHS 2-7-9:

The officials shall conduct the game in accordance with the rules. This includes: Silently and visibly counting seconds to administer the throw-in, free-throw, backcourt, and closely-guarded rules.

(Note no mention of a visible count for a three second violation, usually one of my best calls.)

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

There aren't?

Check out NFHS 2-7-9:

The officials shall conduct the game in accordance with the rules. This includes: Silently and visibly counting seconds to administer the throw-in, free-throw, backcourt, and closely-guarded rules.

(Note no mention of a visible count for a three second violation, usually one of my best calls.)

I stand corrected....I was looking in the rules about the counts themselves. And I did a search for "visible" just to be sure but didn't search for "visibly".

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I stand corrected....I was looking in the rules about the counts themselves. And I did a search for "visible" just to be sure but didn't search for "visibly".

They should really put that rule in the section that, you know, deals with the counts.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by AremRed

They should really put that rule in the section that, you know, deals with the counts.

I don't know, makes sense to put it in the section that spells out our duties rather than the players' prohibited actions.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Adam

I don't know, makes sense to put it in the section that spells out our duties rather than the players' prohibited actions.

I agree. It really isn't a "rule" because it doesn't place any requirement on the players nor does it carry any penalty in the game if it is not done. It is more of a required procedure.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I stand corrected ... And I did a search for "visible" just to be sure but didn't search for "visibly".

I made the same mistake. After not finding anything relevant with "visible" in the search engine, I decided to do an old fashioned search ... with my eyes.

Also, you can sit down now, your legs must be getting very tired.