Adjusting Clock to Remove Time Under 1 Second Remaining

[rekent]

With 0.9 seconds remaining on the clock, A1 is shooting the second of two free throws and misses. B1 is the first to touch the ball on the rebound and simultaneously places both hands on the ball thereby gaining player control. Also simultaneously, B1 requests and is granted a timeout by the lead official. The slot official does not chop the clock in because he states that he heard the lead's whistle as soon as he saw B1 catch (first touch) the ball.

Do you adjust the clock to remove time from the 0.9 seconds that was on the clock prior to the free-throw, or do you leave the clock at 0.9? If you adjust the clock, how do you support it by rule since you lack any definite knowledge or count that may be used (there is no video replay)?

[crosscountry55]

I think the key word here is "simultaneously." If I hear a player yelling, "time out, time out, time out!" as he's going up to rebound the ball, and then he does, I'm not going to chop the clock, either. But if there's even the smallest doubt about possession, I am chopping it and not granting the TO until I've confirmed possession by the team requesting it.

If this was a clean rebound with simultaneous TO as described, I see no reason to deduct time from the clock. That is a well executed TO call by the calling team.

[deecee]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

I think the key word here is "simultaneously." If I hear a player yelling, "time out, time out, time out!" as he's going up to rebound the ball, and then he does, I'm not going to chop the clock, either. But if there's even the smallest doubt about possession, I am chopping it and not granting the TO until I've confirmed possession by the team requesting it.

If this was a clean rebound with simultaneous TO as described, I see no reason to deduct time from the clock. That is a well executed TO call by the calling team.

You need possession to call a TO. Possession her implies the ball being touched and the clock started. I disagree completely with your logic.

[RefCT]

Could you use the tap rule (0.3 seconds or less) to justify taking 0.4 seconds off since they had to gain PC to call a TO?

[APG]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

I think the key word here is "simultaneously." If I hear a player yelling, "time out, time out, time out!" as he's going up to rebound the ball, and then he does, I'm not going to chop the clock, either. But if there's even the smallest doubt about possession, I am chopping it and not granting the TO until I've confirmed possession by the team requesting it.

If this was a clean rebound with simultaneous TO as described, I see no reason to deduct time from the clock. That is a well executed TO call by the calling team.

What does possession have to do with chopping the clock? You're only looking for a touch.

[rekent]

Originally Posted by RefCT

Could you use the tap rule (0.3 seconds or less) to justify taking 0.4 seconds off since they had to gain PC to call a TO?

This was suggested to me, but more than 0.3 is the time required to catch and shoot. How do you determine how much time is allocated to the catch and how much time to the shot?

[RefCT]

Originally Posted by rekent

This was suggested to me, but more than 0.3 is the time required to catch and shoot. How do you determine how much time is allocated to the catch and how much time to the shot?

Good point. Since there is no definite knowledge, what can you do within the rules? Nothing I guess.

[rekent]

This was a tournament environment that doubled as a camp, and I was R on the game so the decision was up to me. I chose to not adjust it because I had no definite knowledge, but was soundly ripped by every evaluator that spoke to me for not changing it. Between them all, 0.2 to 0.5 would have come off of the clock but none of them were able to support it by rule, just said that logically some amount of time had to have passed.

Edit: I should add, I agree that logically some amount of time should have come off. I just don't think I am allowed to arbitrarily take time off, as was suggested to me, under the current rules as written and still have support.

[APG]

Originally Posted by rekent

This was a tournament environment that doubled as a camp, and I was R on the game so the decision was up to me. I chose to not adjust it because I had no definite knowledge, but was soundly ripped by every evaluator that spoke to me for not changing it. Between them all, 0.2 to 0.5 would have come off of the clock but none of them were able to support it by rule, just said that logically some amount of time had to have passed.

I've heard the same thing at camp as well. My advice, do what is expected in your area and by your supervisor.

[rekent]

Originally Posted by APG

I've heard the same thing at camp as well. My advice, do what is expected in your area and by your supervisor.

Local chapter president would remove 0.4. Local chapter assigner would not remove anything.

I doubt there could ever be consensus on this, I am just hoping for more opinions and rationales so that I can have this one in my tool belt and not get ripped for it if it happens in my big tournament next month.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by rekent

This was a tournament environment that doubled as a camp, and I was R on the game so the decision was up to me. I chose to not adjust it because I had no definite knowledge, but was soundly ripped by every evaluator that spoke to me for not changing it. Between them all, 0.2 to 0.5 would have come off of the clock but none of them were able to support it by rule, just said that logically some amount of time had to have passed.

You are both correct. Some time should come off, but the NFHS also needs to adopt a rule such as the NBA has mandating a minimum amount of time that must come off in these single touch then immediate dead ball situations.
Until the NFHS does that, I am chopping the clock and blowing the whistle. We are going to stick with whatever the timer gets from quickly starting and stopping the clock. I can't count in tenths of a second, so I can't have definite knowledge to deduct anything if the timer fails to start the clock.

[bob jenkins]

I agree that the NFHS needs to codify what is in this case, part (c):

SITUATION 11: Team B scores a goal to take the lead by one point. A1 immediately requests and is granted a timeout with three seconds remaining in the fourth quarter. Following the time-out, Team A is awarded the ball for a throw-in from anywhere along the end line. A1 passes the ball to A2, who is also outside the boundary; A2 passes the ball to A1 who is inbounds and running the length of the court. The timer mistakenly starts the clock when A2 touches A1’s pass while standing outside the boundary. An official notices the clock starting on A2’s touch (a), before A2 releases the throw-in pass to A1, (b), while A2’s throw-in pass is in flight to A1, or (c), as soon as A1 catches the throw-in pass. RULING: This is an obvious timing mistake and may be corrected. In (a) and (b), the official shall blow the whistle, stop play and direct the timer to put three seconds on the game clock. Since the throw-in had not ended, play is resumed with a Team A throw-in from anywhere along the end line. In (c), the official may put the correct time on the clock, but must make some allowance for the touching by A1 – likely 10ths of a second, if displayed. The ball is put in play nearest to where it was located when the stoppage occurred to correct the timing mistake. A “do over” is not permitted in (c), since the throw-in had ended. (4-36; 5-10-1)

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by APG

What does possession have to do with chopping the clock? You're only looking for a touch.

This is true, but when said touch is clearly a two-hand grab that coincides with possession, I could chop and then instantaneously put my hand back up for the TO call. But why concede time to the timer's OODA loop (observe, orient, decide, act) when you know for certain the touch, possession, and timeout call were all at the same moment?

To me, this runs the risk of ALL the time coming off the clock, and then you have to go back to the table and defend something. Whether that be the game being over or putting some arbitrary fraction of a second back on the clock is up to the crew. I'd rather avoid that situation with a more logical judgment, i.e. that the player was actively calling TO at the precise moment the throw-in ended, which in this case coincided with possession.

Again, this is a very specific case. A lot of things had to fall into place, i.e. the player clearly desiring a TO as quickly as he could get possession, and a definitive possession that coincided with the end of the throw-in. If I have definite knowledge of that, then time didn't run off the clock. Short of this, then yes, some time is most surely going to come off.

NOTE: This is my interpretation of the rule. Nothing in the rules states clearly that a minimum of 0.X seconds must come off the clock when a throw-in ends. But I understand that others will interpret this situation differently and I'm comfortable with that. This is a good case for the NFHS to clarify if they haven't already somewhere in the interp archives.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

This is true, but when said touch is clearly a two-hand grab that coincides with possession, I could chop and then instantaneously put my hand back up for the TO call. .
.

Control is not instantaneous. For all you know, the player might muff the catch. Conrol is grabbing it and holding onto it. How Long does that take? I don't know, exactly. But I do know that it is not instantaneous.

To catch the ball long enough to demonstrate control will take some non-zero amount of time.

The problem in this case is one official starting time and a different one stopping time....each with different reflex speeds.

[HokiePaul]

Originally Posted by RefCT

Good point. Since there is no definite knowledge, what can you do within the rules? Nothing I guess.

You have definate knowledge that some time more than zero should have run off. If I truly thought it was an instantaneous posession/timeout, I'd go with 0.1.

The case referenced by Bob supports this logic in my opinion.

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

I agree that the NFHS needs to codify what is in this case, part (c):

SITUATION 11: Team B scores a goal to take the lead by one point. A1 immediately requests and is granted a timeout with three seconds remaining in the fourth quarter. Following the time-out, Team A is awarded the ball for a throw-in from anywhere along the end line. A1 passes the ball to A2, who is also outside the boundary; A2 passes the ball to A1 who is inbounds and running the length of the court. The timer mistakenly starts the clock when A2 touches A1’s pass while standing outside the boundary. An official notices the clock starting on A2’s touch (a), before A2 releases the throw-in pass to A1, (b), while A2’s throw-in pass is in flight to A1, or (c), as soon as A1 catches the throw-in pass. RULING: This is an obvious timing mistake and may be corrected. In (a) and (b), the official shall blow the whistle, stop play and direct the timer to put three seconds on the game clock. Since the throw-in had not ended, play is resumed with a Team A throw-in from anywhere along the end line. In (c), the official may put the correct time on the clock, but must make some allowance for the touching by A1 – likely 10ths of a second, if displayed. The ball is put in play nearest to where it was located when the stoppage occurred to correct the timing mistake. A “do over” is not permitted in (c), since the throw-in had ended. (4-36; 5-10-1)