Timing question

[BryanV21]

Since there was no count by an official in this situation (assuming by "length of court pass" meaning it wasn't tipped in the backcourt, so no ten-second count was started), can there be "definite knowledge"?

[HokiePaul]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

Since there was no count by an official in this situation (assuming by "length of court pass" meaning it wasn't tipped in the backcourt, so no ten-second count was started), can there be "definite knowledge"?

Definite knowledge doesn't mean there had to be a visual count (e.g. backcourt/closely guarded). I keep my own count on last second plays just for situations like this where something goes wrong with the clock. I'd have definite knowledge that something other than 0.0 should have come off the clock, although I know this has been debated before and I think it's about 50/50 on those who agree with this interpretation.

[BryanV21]

Originally Posted by HokiePaul

Definite knowledge doesn't mean there had to be a visual count (e.g. backcourt/closely guarded). I keep my own count on last second plays just for situations like this where something goes wrong with the clock. I'd have definite knowledge that something other than 0.0 should have come off the clock, although I know this has been debated before and I think it's about 50/50 on those who agree with this interpretation.

I totally agree that some time should be taken off, but not sure how to do that with definite knowledge.

Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

Since there was no count by an official in this situation (assuming by "length of court pass" meaning it wasn't tipped in the backcourt, so no ten-second count was started), can there be "definite knowledge"?

According to Albert Einstein, Carl Sagan, and Neil deGrasse Tyson--yes.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

Since there was no count by an official in this situation (assuming by "length of court pass" meaning it wasn't tipped in the backcourt, so no ten-second count was started), can there be "definite knowledge"?

An official can have a count in his or her head. Such a count could easily get you to half or a full second. If you get to a full second, game over. If half, then put it in play with .4. Some will note that you could get a fairly accurate count down to tenths of a second, but that's a harder sell IMO. I might be willing to sell quarters if I was cognizant enough to actually count it.

[Nevadaref]

I can't count in tenths of a second. Timers make mistakes.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I can't count in tenths of a second. Timers make mistakes.

Can you count in Mississippi's? If so, you've got a count in 0.2 second increments.

• One - 0.2
• Miss - 0.4
• i - 0.6
• ssi - 0.8
• ppi - 1.0

If your cadence is not quite regular, it may not be exactly accurate, but it would be a valid count.

[deecee]

I'm taking off .3 seconds. I am making an allowance for the clock starting on the tip and going out of bounds. There is a threshold that you can be 100% certain that much time went off the clock without knowing how much actually went off. You just need to apply some common sense.

In most cases in what was described I would be 100% certain that .3 seconds as that number increases my certainty decreases.

[Adam]

.3 seconds refers to catching and releasing a ball. It has nothing to do with the time it takes a ball to go from being tipped to hitting out of bounds. Depending on the player's proximity to the line, it could easily be less than .3 seconds. One could maybe make the case that the NFHS ruling requires at least .1, but .3 comes out of thin air for this situation.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Adam

.3 seconds refers to catching and releasing a ball. It has nothing to do with the time it takes a ball to go from being tipped to hitting out of bounds. Depending on the player's proximity to the line, it could easily be less than .3 seconds. One could maybe make the case that the NFHS ruling requires at least .1, but .3 comes out of thin air for this situation.

Are you aware of the NBA rule requiring 0.3 to be removed from the clock anytime the ball is touched inbounds and then becomes dead again from a stopped clock situation?

That is from where deecee is taking the grounds for his decision.

[deecee]

Originally Posted by Adam

.3 seconds refers to catching and releasing a ball. It has nothing to do with the time it takes a ball to go from being tipped to hitting out of bounds. Depending on the player's proximity to the line, it could easily be less than .3 seconds. One could maybe make the case that the NFHS ruling requires at least .1, but .3 comes out of thin air for this situation.

My statement said for most cases. There may be times where the touch happens close to the OOB and the ball immediately goes out at almost the same time. In this case I wouldn't be comfortable with .3 seconds. In reality in most cases the number is greater than .3 but to me it's one I'm comfortable using as my baseline. I sure as hell am NOT going to NOT take any time off when the ball was legally touched and the clock didn't start.