Don, per the rule, when there is .3 or less on the clock, any attempt must be a "tap"..........I dont know where/why RickyP came up with the .7 number.

 

LRCW......I didnt intend to infer such a thing to RickyP. I thought maybe it was a typo that he put .7 instead of .3..........But you do make a good point, it wouldnt hurt for all of us to brush up on the rules a bit before we "yell and scream".........

So, are you saying that if we do brush up on the rules, it's okay to yell and scream?

So, are you saying that if we do brush up on the rules, it's okay to yell and scream?

 

 

I really contemplated my answer to this question for some time........I came to the conclusion that no attention would be paid to me even if I did say it wasnt okay......That being said......let 'er rip...

I really contemplated my answer to this question for some time........I came to the conclusion that no attention would be paid to me even if I did say it wasnt okay......That being said......let 'er rip...

Good answer. You know what? As long as the refs are consistent, that's all that matters. Call it in the 1st the same as you do in the 4th. If you let them get away with handcheck out front, don't call the push off with the arm. Just consistent. That's all. On a side note, I enjoyed the All-A officiating, very consistent, let them play for the most part. Good crews all around. Bobby Hall did a fine job with his crew in the games I watched him. Like I said, consistent.

Let me explain about the last shot in regulation. It has been proven that with less than .7 seconds it is impossible to catch and shoot. The officials even meet at midcourt prior to the play and I imagine that is what they discussed because as soon as the Hazard player caught the ball they immediately waved it off.

 

Whitaker play great down the stretch and made a huge play to give Hazard a 2 point lead late. Hazard is very young I believe they only have 1 senior.

 

I think you meant to say with 0:00.3 (three tenths) of a second left. That's the rule.

I'm not sure, but I believe I've heard the following....

 

0:0.3 seconds remaining, can only be a "tip and not catch/shoot"

0:0.7 - studies have been done, that is how much minimum time is needed to actually catch and shoot.

 

Does anyone know, what the NFHS Rule is regarding either?

From NFHS Rule Book:

 

Rule 5 Section 2 Article 5........"When play is resumed with a throw in or free throw and three-tenths (.3) of a second or less remains on the clock, a player may not gain control of the ball and try for a field goal. In this situation only a tap could score. Note: This rule does not apply if the clock does not display tenths of a second."

From NFHS Rule Book:

 

Rule 5 Section 2 Article 5........"When play is resumed with a throw in or free throw and three-tenths (.3) of a second or less remains on the clock, a player may not gain control of the ball and try for a field goal. In this situation only a tap could score. Note: This rule does not apply if the clock does not display tenths of a second."

Thanks FT....:thumb:

If they go by the rule of tip and no catch and shoot at .3 then yes the call was right. But if they go by the clock, it should have counted. Either way, Hazard came out in OT and took care of business and didn't let the call determine the game.

If they go by the rule of tip and no catch and shoot at .3 then yes the call was right. But if they go by the clock, it should have counted. Either way, Hazard came out in OT and took care of business and didn't let the call determine the game.

 

 

I dont think anyone was debating the call.....it seems everyone agrees that it was correct..........

I saw it and even the clock keeper got the timing right because the red light was lit before he let it go. Good call. Little official came flying in waving his arms like he was drowning. Good call though.

I saw it and even the clock keeper got the timing right because the red light was lit before he let it go. Good call. Little official came flying in waving his arms like he was drowning. Good call though.

 

I don't know who the person was, but I don't think I would refer to him as a "little official". Maybe he could be referred to as the "shorter of the 3 officials", if in fact that were the case.

 

:thumb: