QUOTE]
Originally posted by blindzebra
Just because he said .6 was on there at the whistle does not mean that an official was looking at the clock at that whistle. Any look
after the whistle means whatever time was on the clock can be put back on. [/QUOTE]
Agreed.
Quote:
Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
And what was the exact time on the clock then after the official looked if he wasn't looking at the clock when he blew his whistle with 0.6 seconds left? Where can I find that information?
|
Exactly, you can't know unless you are looking!
Quote:
Originally posted by Daryl H. Long
The only way any official can say with certainty that he blew his whistle with exactly .6 seconds is if he was looking at the clock before/while he was blowing his whistle. If he was looking at the clock how could he have seen any type of foul or violation or request for a time-out? He can't. He becomes derelict by not keeping his eyes on the players during the live ball.
Given this, while I do not intend to put words in JRs mouth, my take on his argument is that if the official says he blew his whistle KNOWING there were .6 seconds remaining then first we question why the officials was looking at the clock, and secondly, reality tells us no matter how fast the timer is at his duty to stop the clock it is not unreasonable for time TO HAVE EXPIRED and therefore the game is over. I can accept that.
My argument is that the time I see after blowing my whistle is not the time that my whistle blew. It is the time that we can reasonably expect to be showing given the timer stopped the clock as soon as he heard the whistle.
|
Very well said, Daryl, I agree 100%, but still have some nagging problems with the rule.
While I've been away let me first say thanks to all of you for the great discussion. I posted this play hoping to get into the finer details of the NFHS lag time provisions. After working the game in question (Yes, I was the official who blew the whistle.), I firmly believe that the current NFHS timing rules need to be changed.
The rulings in the two case book plays that have been cited are most likely in conflict with one another (see the very end of this post), probably outdated (5.10.1SitD doesn't use a clock which displays tenths in the examples), and, at best, the comment to 5.10.1SitB is vague and unclear as different people have different reaction times.
Must a full second of lag time be allowed for even if the official is very fast and can turn and look at the clock after blowing the whistle in only a half a second? Does the amount of lag time that the timer gets vary with turning speed of each official? If so, the game changes with the reaction time of the officials. Well, these general comments are better left until the end of this post. I will return to them then.
Right now I will clarify some information about this specific play in light of the lively discussion it has generated.
First, I was the Trail official on the court during the FTs. Hence, I was the new Lead official for the final play. I was also the Referee for the contest. It was my responsibility to handle any clock issues and make the final ruling.
Second, I must confess that I changed ONE aspect of the actual play when I posted. The final shot was NOT successful. Thank goodness for that as we may not have made it out of the gym if it had been because I would NOT have counted it. I apologize for this fib, but since it doesn't change the crux of the discussion, which is the timing issue, but merely adds a level of excitement to the whole scenario, I took some liberty. I actually had the thought about what if that shot had gone in while in the lockerroom following the game and posed it to my partners to see their reactions.
Thirdly, for the record, my ruling was that the timer was within her allowable one second of lag time and that the game was over. I gave a brief explanation to the home coach, who was a gentleman about it, but it didn't satisfy him, and we left the gym.
Fourth, I WAS LOOKING AT THE CLOCK WHEN I BLEW THE WHISTLE. I did this purposely, but I don't believe that I will ever do so again.
Since this was a 3-man crew and I knew that the coach was going to request his final time-out when the division line was reached (because he told me so), I did NOT watch much of the play on the court. Instead, I chose to focus on the game clock. I trusted my TWO partners to handle everything while the play was in the backcourt. They are both quality officials and I wasn't going to make a call back there anyway, so why in the heck should I be looking back there?
I simply stood about the FT extended in the frontcourt, next to the coach, and watched the clock to make sure that it started properly on the touching of the missed FT, then tracked the play until the ball neared the division line at which time I returned my eyes to the clock and listened for the coach, who was standing right next to me, to ask for his time-out. Therefore, when he starting yelling time-out, I blew the whistle immediately and definitely know that 0.6 was on the clock. At this point I looked back to the player with the ball. I saw her grab the ball with two hands and throw it towards the basket. Therefore, I am also certain that this attempt came after the whistle.
Then I heard the horn. My thought was, "Ah, no," to myself, of course, because I knew that I was going to have to declare the game over.
All of that being said, I believe that I ruled correctly. I knew BOTH case book plays and the difference between looking while blowing the whistle and blowing followed by turning and looking.
During the final sequence I did what I thought would be best for the game and allow me to make a correct call. That is why I chose to focus on the clock.
However, if I had it to do over again, I would do the opposite. I would watch the play and turn and look. I believe that I can turn and look in less than a half a second. That would have enabled me to put some time back BY RULE and in my opinion that is more fair. As it turned out, I felt honor bound to do my job as an official and follow the rule even though I felt that the home team was getting screwed by that rule and my choice of action. There was no way that I was going to say that I wasn't watching the clock, but had turned and looked and thus invoke the other case play. That would have been dishonest and for me the integrity of the game comes down to the integrity of its officials.
However, it is a fact that that game ended because I chose to watch the clock instead of turn and look.
In a fair world that shouldn't matter.
Really why should it matter if the official is looking directly at the clock and sees time left or if he turns VERY QUICKLY and sees time left? There is still time left.
I certainly could have turned my head and seen 0.4 left, maybe even 0.5 or 0.6 if I am lightning fast. That team could have had a catch and shoot, if I had acted differently.
What if I had never turned back to look at the player with the ball, but simply watched the clock run out? Are we happy with this rule that says that I observed the clock run out
AFTER I blew my whistle, but I still can't put any time back? I hated telling that coach that I saw 0.6 on the clock, but couldn't put it back. His team fought back from an 18-1 deficit and deserved better, yet I also had a responsibility to the girls wearing the other color uniforms and had to do what was the right thing for them. Therefore, I went with the book. Today I can look both coaches and my assignor in the eye and tell them that I did my job, and I can support how I ruled with specific wording in the book.
The bottom line is that this is a bad rule and needs to be changed. I will be submitting a rules change form through my state office to the NFHS at the end of the season. I welcome any thoughts and help with the wording.
I'll end this post by sharing that most of our postgame discussion was about the NFHS lag time rule. One of my partners said that he thought you could put back whatever amount of time you saw because you had definite knowledge. I explained to him my understanding of the two different aspects, namely the watching while blowing (SitB Comment) and the looking after hitting the whistle (SitD). We then went to a local sports bar, pulled out the case book, and read the relevant citations in 5.10.
He then asked me a question which I couldn't answer. He said, "I didn't look, but what if I had turned and looked at the clock after I heard your whistle and I saw 0.4 seconds left?"
Now it seems that both case book play rulings have to be dealt with at the same time. Which one takes precedence? Let's say that we have one official watching the clock while blowing the whistle and observes it tick away from 0.6 down to zero. He never takes his eyes off the clock. Yet another official turns and looks after his partner sounds the whistle and he is able to see 0.4 still on the clock before it runs out.
We have a real conflict. Do we have to allow the timer a full second of lag time or should he/she have been able to react as quickly as my partner? What amount of time, if anything, should be put back up?
Lastly, what happens if the official is looking directly at the clock when blowing the whistle and sees 0.6, THEN TURNS AWAY to see the ball or something else, and now turns his head back to the clock again and sees 0.1 remaining? Which case book ruling applies and how much time, if any, can be put back?
What a headache!