Rhode Island State Final

[Nevadaref]

Two questions:
1. How did they come up with 1.0 for the clock? There is no way any official saw that time on the clock.

2. Did the same crew work both the D3 and D2 games? The white-haired guy looks the same.

[RefsNCoaches]

Originally Posted by eyezen

We're talking about Rhode Island here, whose size is barely larger than the average county.

Which begs the question, how in the world do they have 3 classes?

I understand that...just seems funny cause even our Class A (small schools) get more than that in attendance.

[BatteryPowered]

Originally Posted by RefsNCoaches

I understand that...just seems funny cause even our Class A (small schools) get more than that in attendance.

In Texas, our Class A high schools have an student population of 104 or less (they play 6-man football) and in the playoffs there will be crowds as large as the one in the video.

[Raymond]

So this has turned into a thread about whose (crowd) is bigger?

[Rich]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

So this has turned into a thread about whose (crowd) is bigger?

Let me get my ruler.

[BatteryPowered]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

So this has turned into a thread about whose (crowd) is bigger?

Why not? Seems the consensus is that 1 second was too much time to put back on the clock but that is doesn't matter as the shot got off before the time would have expired anyway.

So...let's move on to other things seen in the video.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Two questions:
1. How did they come up with 1.0 for the clock? There is no way any official saw that time on the clock.

Maybe not, but it seems like they were close.



Peace

[Raymond]

No way a time-out request was recognized at 1.0.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

No way a time-out request was recognized at 1.0.

I actually agree but he possessed the ball about that time and I can live with that time when that is what was on the clock. Even if they put .8 on the clock, that would have been OK with me as well and still would have been enough time to execute that shot at the end. It is not an exact science anyway.

Peace

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

No way a time-out request was recognized at 1.0.

I actually agree but he possessed the ball about that time and I can live with that time when that is what was on the clock. Even if they put .8 on the clock, that would have been OK with me as well and still would have been enough time to execute that shot at the end. It is not an exact science anyway.

Peace

[letemplay]

I've heard some argue that the amount of time put back on (1.0) is a bit irrelevant since the shot took way less than that. Let me offer that there is a huge difference in this case in 1 second and say .5, and that is what it forces the defense to be ready for. With one second a shooter would have time to come off a screen take a pass at the arc, square and release a 3 pointer, or they could run any number of plays to any spot in the front court scoring area. With less time, a catch and quick put back might be the only option, and thus could be better defended than what happened here, where the initial screener back cut for the lob. If I'm the defensive coach, (after scraping myself and players off the pile and realizing you had NOT won) I'd be arguing all I could for something under 1.0, so I would have less options to defend. As someone else said, we don't have luxury of review here.

I also feel bad for the kid who passed the ball BACKWARDS after getting the (what should have been) the gw steal..WOW

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by letemplay

I've heard some argue that the amount of time put back on (1.0) is a bit irrelevant since the shot took way less than that. Let me offer that there is a huge difference in this case in 1 second and say .5, and that is what it forces the defense to be ready for. With one second a shooter would have time to come off a screen take a pass at the arc, square and release a 3 pointer, or they could run any number of plays to any spot in the front court scoring area. With less time, a catch and quick put back might be the only option, and thus could be better defended than what happened here, where the initial screener back cut for the lob. If I'm the defensive coach, (after scraping myself and players off the pile and realizing you had NOT won) I'd be arguing all I could for something under 1.0, so I would have less options to defend. As someone else said, we don't have luxury of review here.

I agree but they put on .8 or .7 and they could have gotten off a shot theoretically. And if you did not notice the clock did not even start exactly the time the ball touched the shooter's hand. So there is a lot of give and take in the time in these situations. Kind of like the game out west that made headlines about how a stop watch was used.

Peace

[letemplay]

Yep, I was just making a point the defense could look for less options. Seen this play several times over the years, where on a throw in with a short clock, the coach tells us he's throwing to half court and calling an immediate time out. If the clock read 3.0 seconds prior to the throw in, what's the least amount of time that can go off on a catch and an almost simultaneous TO call? And, without a doubt, the clock operator is not waiting for a whistle..he/she is hearing the HC yelling TIME OUT, probably before ball is even touched.
What's next, a rule stating that when this play happens, a definite amount is taken off? .2 .3? Sometimes we are at not only at the mercy of slow or happy trigger fingers, but the actual mechanical capabilities of the scoreboard controlling device.

[jpgc99]

Originally Posted by letemplay

And, without a doubt, the clock operator is not waiting for a whistle..he/she is hearing the HC yelling TIME OUT, probably before ball is even touched.

I disagree with this premise, and it clearly did not happen in this game. The clock expired and officials put time back on the clock. This is evidence the operator did the right thing and waited for the whistle.

It is not the clock operators job to stop the clock when a coach yells timeout. The clock operator should respond only to the officials.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

No way a time-out request was recognized at 1.0.

Exactly. The player wasn't even touching the ball yet when the clock rolled to 1.0.....but he was touching it by the time it hit 0.9. And that was merely the touch, not control. 0.6 or 0.7 at most.