View Single Post
  #122 (permalink)  
Old Thu Nov 19, 2009, 03:39pm
Back In The Saddle Back In The Saddle is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: In a little pink house
Posts: 5,289
Quote:
Originally Posted by bob jenkins View Post
We had this play in my game Tues night:

Foul in the last minute of the quarter. Some "skirmishing" after the whistle. By the time anyone could look at the clock, it read 13.1 and was still running. By the time we could get it stopped, it read 10.something.

Clearly, and by common sense, the foul happened with more than 13.1 left. But, what could we put on the clock?

Why is it different if it's 3.1 or 1.31 or .31 left when you notice the clock?
There is a big difference in the OP and in this situation. In the OP you've instant recognition that the clock did not stop, and instant recognition that that very brief interval between whistle and horn is significant. And you've got quite a lot of additional objective information that all corroborates the elapsed time being only a small fraction of a second.

In your situation, you have additional, unusual activity that required your full attention between the whistle and the recognition that the clock did not stop. You also have a period of time that cannot be reliably estimated any closer than "a few seconds". You have not indicated any "other official information" that would help. So what can you do? Put up 13.1 and go with it. It's what I would do, and what I would argue that any of us should do.

BTW, I have never argued that we should make a "wild guess". I have not suggested we use a "rough estimate". If you have no definite information, you cannot make it up. In most cases, I don't believe we can do any better than the time observed plus/minus an official's count. The OP is a pretty unique situation with a very high probability that a well-informed estimate would be right to within 1/10 of a second.
__________________
"It is not enough to do your best; you must know what to do, and then do your best." - W. Edwards Deming
Reply With Quote