Rhode Island State Final

[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.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by jpgc99

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.

And BY RULE the whistle stops the clock, not the official thinking that he is granting a time-out request. There is no provision for restoring time which ticks away prior to the sounding of a whistle.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

And BY RULE the whistle stops the clock, not the official thinking that he is granting a time-out request. There is no provision for restoring time which ticks away prior to the sounding of a whistle.

I think we've established you're the only one here who interprets the rule that strictly.

My big problem here is its obvious the crew guessed a second and put that on the clock.

[deecee]

Originally Posted by Rich

I think we've established you're the only one here who interprets the rule that strictly.

My big problem here is its obvious the crew guessed a second and put that on the clock.

I agree.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Rich

I think we've established you're the only one here who interprets the rule that strictly.

My big problem here is its obvious the crew guessed a second and put that on the clock.

Pretty much.

Peace

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Rich

I think we've established you're the only one here who interprets the rule that strictly.

My big problem here is its obvious the crew guessed a second and put that on the clock.

Oh please. There are probably more officials who would say that it's the whistle.

Plus there are all of the timers working NFHS games. When do you expect the timer to stop the clock? When he reads the official's mind?

The OBVIOUS answer is that the whistle is the point at which the clock should stop. No one can contest that.