Situations less than .3 seconds left

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Fine, the whistle is the indicator of the violation. To summarize: The official did "specifically signal continued timeout", so the clock does not start.

What more is there to consider?

How about WHY the official would continue to signal time-out when the ball is legally touched on the court and properness (or improperness) of doing so?
You cannot find one rule anywhere which states that the clock should not start on this touch. You can only find a rule stating that the clock shall stop on the violation. Now why is that?
Because it works the way I wrote in my first post in this thread--the clock should start and then stop. We can debate how quickly (My answer is however long it takes the human official to recognize the violation and sound his whistle plus however long it takes the human timer to react to hearing that whistle and click the stop-clock switch.), but we cannot debate that BY RULE the clock is to start in cases of a touch other than a kick or punch of the ball.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

How about WHY the official would continue to signal time-out when the ball is legally touched on the court and properness (or improperness) of doing so?
You cannot find one rule anywhere which states that the clock should not start on this touch. You can only find a rule stating that the clock shall stop on the violation. Now why is that?
Because it works the way I wrote in my first post in this thread--the clock should start and then stop. We can debate how quickly (My answer is however long it takes the human official to recognize the violation and sound his whistle plus however long it takes the human timer to react to hearing that whistle and click the stop-clock switch.), but we cannot debate that BY RULE the clock is to start in cases of a touch other than a kick or punch of the ball.

What does the word UNLESS mean to you? He should start the clock UNLESS this happens. Guess what, it happened.

Try one more. 6-7-9 tells us that the ball becomes dead when a violation occurs. But you're saying the clock must start at this point when the ball is clearly dead?

[Nevadaref]

1. You didn't answer WHY the official isn't starting the clock on the LEGAL touch.
2. You have not cited an NFHS rule or Case Play stating not to start the clock on such a touch as there is for a kick/fist.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

1. You didn't answer WHY the official isn't starting the clock on the LEGAL touch.
2. You have not cited an NFHS rule or Case Play stating not to start the clock on such a touch as there is for a kick/fist.

I'm thinking that they figure you'll know enough not to start it when an act occurs which stops it.

If you want to split hairs and read every word: 5-9-3 says on a missed free throw the clock shall be started when the ball touches or is touched by a player on the court.

It doesn't say legally touched. So if a player kicks a missed free throw out of bounds would you start the clock then too?

[frezer11]

Let's look at this scenario from two different points of view: What if the timer does not start the clock? Are you going to go over and say definitely that time should come off? How could you know how much? If the ball is inbounded to a player who is clearly OOB (3 feet outside the line), then the touch may be legal, but it is simultaneous with the violation, it doesn't occur even 0.1 seconds later.

Now on the flip side, if the ball is inbounded to a player who is NOT clearly OOB (say the outside edge of his shoe is touching the line). In this case, the official should chop time as soon as the touch happens, and then look down to confirm their in-court status. As soon as the foot is observed OOB, boom, whistle. In that instance I can see time coming off, there still is an element of human reaction.

To summarize, I don't think there can be a hard and fast rule governing whether or not time MUST come off the clock. It really depends on how the paly is viewed/processed by the official.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by frezer11

Let's look at this scenario from two different points of view: What if the timer does not start the clock? Are you going to go over and say definitely that time should come off? How could you know how much? If the ball is inbounded to a player who is clearly OOB (3 feet outside the line), then the touch may be legal, but it is simultaneous with the violation, it doesn't occur even 0.1 seconds later.

Now on the flip side, if the ball is inbounded to a player who is NOT clearly OOB (say the outside edge of his shoe is touching the line). In this case, the official should chop time as soon as the touch happens, and then look down to confirm their in-court status. As soon as the foot is observed OOB, boom, whistle. In that instance I can see time coming off, there still is an element of human reaction.

To summarize, I don't think there can be a hard and fast rule governing whether or not time MUST come off the clock. It really depends on how the paly is viewed/processed by the official.

The best example of whether time CAN come off or not is a play covered by two officials.....one administering the throwin and another covering the line in where the OOB situation occurs. The throwin official will chop time in, the covering official will stop the clock. Time can and should come off as each one properly did their job and signaled accordingly.