Situations less than .3 seconds left
 

A1 is attempting the last of a series of personal foul FTs and the ball is to remain live if the attempt is missed. Three-tenths of a second remain in the first quarter. A2, who is in a marked lane space, gains control of the ball and attempts a try. B1 fouls A2 in the act of shooting before the buzzer sounds to end the period.

Proposed Ruling: By 5-2-5, A2 may not gain control of the ball and attempt a try for field goal. However, the ball does not become dead until the buzzer sounds to end the period. Therefore, B1's foul is a common foul. If A is in the bonus, A2 will shoot at least one free throw. If A is not in the bonus, B1 is simply charged with a foul and the period ends.

A has a throw-in beneath their basket. Three-tenths of a second remain in the first quarter. After the throw-in is released onto the court, a) A1 punches the ball with a closed fist in the direction of the basket; b) A1 commits basket interference; c) B1 commits basket interference.

Proposed Ruling: Since in each of these cases a violation occurred simultaneously with the starting of the clock, the clock is not started. In (a) and (b), B is awarded a designated-spot throw-in nearest to where the violation occurred. In (c), A scores two points and B is awarded a throw-in from anywhere on the end line. There will be three-tenths of a second left on the clock for the ensuing throw-in.

Play 1: your ruling is correct.

Play 2: only part a prevents the clock from starting by rule. For parts b & c, the clock should start on the touch and stop when the official sounds the whistle to call the violation. That is per the timing rules that the timer is to follow.
So the violations in b & c would likely end the period.

We've discussed this before. The touch and the violation are the same event. Most officials will not chop the clock in here, but simply signal the violation. I see no reason why the clock would start.

Reset Clock ???
 

Agree, with a slight change, the touch and the violation are two simultaneous components of the same event.

If the clock was started in error, would you reset it? I would.

I think the OP is proposing a rules / interp change / clarification.

If so, I'd propose:

If a player grabs the ball (play 1), the period immediately ends. Contact is ignored unless I or F.

If the ball is illegally touched (kicked, fisted), the clock does not start. If the touch itself is legal, but the player simultaneously commits a violation, .3 runs off the clock. (Or, I'd live with no time in either scenario)

Both of you need to closely read 5-9-1 and 5-9-4.

The NFHS has specifically told us that a player touching the ball with other than a closed fist or kicking it while simultaneously committing a violation is a legal touch. That came out a couple of years ago with the rulings on a player touching a throw-in pass (both AP and non-AP) while standing on a bounday line.
Therefore, the clock is to start on this touch. Why? Because there is no specific NFHS rule stating otherwise. (The NFHS could certainly create one if it so desires, but it has yet to do so.). If the official fails to chop, the timer is to start the clock BY RULE, 5-9-1. The timer is then required by rule to stop the clock upon hearing the official sound the whistle.
You may not like it, but those are the current rules.

Bob, I would welcome the NFHS writing such rules. It would clarify these type of situations. Unfortunately, they don't exist at this time.

Not Disagreeing, But Would Like More Information ...
 

Can you please dig the "specific(s)" out of your archive? I don't remember this change from a "couple of years ago".

Seems to me that you need to read 5-9-1 yourself.

5-9-1: After time has been out, the clock shall be started when the official signals time-in. If the official neglects to signal, the timer is authorized to start the clock as per rule, unless an official specifically signals continued time-out.

If that doesn't do it for you, check out 5-8-1c:

Time-out occurs and the clock, if running, shall be stopped when an official:
ART. 1 . . . Signals:
a. A foul.
b. A held ball.
c. A violation.

In the OP, that's the only signal one should make.

Nonsense.
First, how can the timer or anyone tell if an official forgot to chop or is specifically signaling continued time-out? Answer: one cannot.
Second, how does an official signal a violation? Answer: raise hand AND blow the whistle.

You are claiming that continually holding up the arm for time-out is also the signal for a BI, kicking, or fist violation, but how can anyone tell? When does the raised arm change its meaning? When the whistle sounds? If so, then the whistle is the indicator of the violation.

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.

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?

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?

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.