Quote:
Originally Posted by Coach Bill
We know what he sees is going to be slow by about 1/10 second.
|
Assumes facts not in evidence
Quote:
|
With all going on, he may have seen 5.3 and it really should have been 5.6 or 5.7.
|
How? If I see 5.3 on the clock, that means that the clock was at 5.3 when the light emitted from the clock reached my eyeballs. By the time the light was processed by my retinas and interpreted by my brain, it's possible that the "actual" time on the clock is down to 5.2 or 5.1 or 5.0 or whatever, but if I saw 5.3 seconds, there's no way there's actually still 5.7 seconds on the clock when I saw it. (since, you know, 5.7 would've been displayed BEFORE 5.3 was displayed).
Quote:
|
It's never going to be less. For example, you're not going to see 5.2 before you see 5.3.
|
Exactly my point above... which runs counter to your "It could've been 5.6 or 5.7" assertion.
Quote:
How simultaneous was the glance and the start of the count. Another inaccuracy of 0.2 seconds (the blink of an eye) could happen here.
Say, his 5 count was actually 4.5.
|
Yes, this these things could've possibly happened. Equally likely is that the officials' 5 count was slightly slow, and, in fact 5.4 seconds elapsed.
Quote:
|
Now, we are getting close to potentially being off by over a second. So, ask the timer what happened, is my point.
|
The timer has one job... to start and stop the clock as directed by the officials (well, the timer does have other jobs, but that's the only one that matters in this situation). The timer failed to do his job, and it's up to the official to correct using the information that the official has. And I'm not asking the timer for his opinion when it's been clearly demonstrated that he's not doing his job properly.