Quote:
Originally Posted by Camron Rust
Even though its clear that I'm in favor of using the console, I have thought of one opposing point.....
Lag time.
It's safe to say that early stoppage is exceedingly rare. However, delayed stoppage does happen....and is fairly common when we're talking about parts of a second. Without having tenths on the display, no official will, when the time is under 1 second, be able to confirm that the clock actually stopped on the whistle or what time should be on the clock.
Given that, an argument could be made that the precision of the time on console can't be confirmed....that even though it may say 0.2 seconds, it should have stopped at 0.6. If that is taken into account, the claim could be made that the human factor should exist throughout....that the re-starting of the clock and the release of the shot should all be based on human factors (with the inherent lags and judgment) rather than the specific time shown on the console.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smitty
That sounds like a different issue, Camron. Regardles of how the clock gets to the time it is stopped on, it is what it is at that point, so if it says .2 then how could you argue that it shouldn't be .2? I would still say that you have to go with what it says as far as allowing a catch and shoot or not.
|
There is no
definitive knowledge that the time should not be, in this case, 0.2 seconds. An official should never change the time in this case.
Not to add fuel to the flames but the reaction time of the clock operator to stop the clock on the whistle is not the same as the reaction time of the clock operator starting it with a visual cue. But we won't get into that because it really doesn't matter, it's so minute
-Josh