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?

[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.

[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.

[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.