[JugglingReferee]

Originally posted by Back In The Saddle
Where is our physicist in residence when you need him? JugglingReferee, you claim that the referee cannot have definite knowledge that the tap took less than 0.3 seconds. 0.3 seconds is the empirically determined minimum time it takes to catch and shoot.

I thought 0.4 was the minimum time needed to catch and shoot. At 0.3, catching and shooting is not possible. Only a tap is permissible.

A tap, on the other hand, is "the contacting of the ball with any part of the player's hand(s) in an attempt to direct the ball into his/her basket." In other words, you've got a ball in the air and you are striking it to redirect it. Assuming the player does not do a one-handed catch and release (which can be done in 0.3 seconds), you've got to consider the tap to be pretty much instantaneous. At the very least you cannot logically consider that it takes 0.3 seconds or longer.

Everyone's definition of simply redirecting the ball is different. Some officials will allow for more prolonged contact with the ball, others less.

In each case, the only consistent tool available to us to make the correct call is that the clock started correctly and that the contact with the ball ended before the buzzer sounded.

You might say that he touched the ball for less than 0.3s and the basket counts, but let's say that replay shows that that is not the case. Now you, the referee, has decided the game. And not anyone else. What tool did you use? Nothing consistent.

NV asserts that counting the goal is within the spirit of the rule that allows the referee to "correct obvious timing errors." I agree with him. I can't find it at the moment, but as I recall the statement about an official's count being definite knowledge is not meant to indicate that it's the only way an official can have definite knowledge.

For example, if the two scorekeepers disagree on how many fouls a player has, they are allowed to correct this error by resorting to memory or logic to acheive "definite knowledge." It's not an exact analog, but does demonstrate that the rules writers intended the officials to use all knowledge at their disposal to correct an error.

In these cases, one official will likely be reminded of a foul that he forgot about. Maybe he originally mis-heard who the foul was on. The only hiccup comes about when two differing official scorebooks have different information. (I've never heard of two official scorekeepers, only one.)

In every case I can find, points scored during an error or disagreement by an official (correctable error situation, timer/scorer disagree, disqualified player allowed to continue playing), the basket stands.

Case 2.13 is particualarly telling in how the rules committee would think about this. If the signal cannot be heard, and the scorer and timer disagree, the referee will make the final ruling. Unless the referee has definite knowledge to the contrary, the goal shall count if it was successful.

I think this is because the Fed does not allow for protests or video replay. Saying the basket counts or the foul stands is the easy way out. In actuality, the basket might not have been good, but to implement aids to determine what actually happened is too much time and money at the Fed level.

One last thought. What does it mean to correct a timing mistake? It means to make it right, to fix it. Different situations may very well require different actions to correct. Whatever definition you apply, taking away a one-in-a-hundred basket for some mytical do-over is not correcting the mistake. It is making another one.

I don't care if it's a one-in-a-hundred sitch. Every possession counts, for both teams.

Some good points, though.