How to handle end of game clock situation

[HokiePaul]

Originally Posted by Valley Man

Adjust it with what count? Supported rule count

You have to catch it right away and leave it at 5.0 and go from original spot

I don't know why so many officials take this stance. If I'm counting in my head, then I have "an official's count". Why would you mess things up more by pretending no time elapsed when you (or one of the other officials) knows how much time elapsed?

SECTION 10 TIMING MISTAKES
ART. 2 . . . If the referee determines that the clock malfunctioned or was not started/stopped properly, or if the clock did not run, an official’s count or other official information may be used to make a correction.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by HokiePaul

I don't know why so many officials take this stance. If I'm counting in my head, then I have "an official's count". Why would you mess things up more by pretending no time elapsed when you (or one of the other officials) knows how much time elapsed?

SECTION 10 TIMING MISTAKES
ART. 2 . . . If the referee determines that the clock malfunctioned or was not started/stopped properly, or if the clock did not run, an official’s count or other official information may be used to make a correction.

I agree and think you can have your own count even when not ten second or 5 count etc. But if you are thinking about doing that with 5 left .....communicate with the timer and your partners before ball inbounded. I will say something to the timer and my partners. talking to the timer usually solves any issues but there are timers who might be a little slow on the trigger. one of us has to see that the clock didn't start. right away..(unless you see an immediate scoring play off the inbounds..then id wait....)timing mistakes at end can be nightmare. always communicate..

[Nevadaref]

We've had this discussion numerous times before on this site.
I've always advocated the following:
1. Only the Referee may correct a timing mistake. The Referee may take input from the umpire(s), but must make the final decision.
2. Once the throw-in is touched inbounds, it is over and any stoppage for a timing error now results in a POI throw-in. There are no do-overs under NFHS rules.
3. 2-7-9 lists the officials counts during the contest. Those are what may be used to correct an unnoticed timing mistake.
4. If an official notices that the clock did not properly start or has improperly stopped and does not wish to halt play immediately because a scoring playing is in progress, the official needs to start a visible count and continue it until either halting play for a correction or to signal that time has expired. Having this count be visible is important because it can be verified via video in the event of a complaint.
5. If the clock improperly starts prematurely, prior to the ball being touched inbounds, an official needs to notice and stop play immediately and before the ball is touched inbounds. The time can then be restored and the game resumed from where that the throw-in was located. If already touched, then POI is required and some small amount of time must be deducted for the inbounds touching.
6. If no visible counts were made while the clock was not properly running, then no correction can occur, other than a small deduction for a throw-in catch or touching. This is unfortunate, but officials can't make their best guess nor use non-visible counts which aren't part of 2-7-9. There does not exist a single NFHS ruling or Case Book play in which an official counts in his head and uses that for a correction.

[BillyMac]

I always have a mental, silent, nonvisible, count inside my head for the last several seconds of all periods, and I would use it in this situation. In the rare event that I didn't have such a count, I would never go back and try to figure out the count from memory.

Originally Posted by HokiePaul

SECTION 10 TIMING MISTAKES (ART. 1 The referee may correct an obvious mistake by the timer to start or stop the clock properly only when he/she has definite information relative to the time involved. The exact time observed by the official may be placed on the clock.) ART. 2 . If the referee determines that the clock malfunctioned or was not started/stopped properly, or if the clock did not run, an official’s count or other official information may be used to make a correction.

Call my mental, silent, nonvisible, count inside my head an "official’s count", or if that doesn't work for some of you because it's not visible, then call it "other official information". It certainly was "observed" by me (mentally, silently, nonvisibly, inside my head).

If that still doesn't work for you then add a dash of "purpose and intent", not too much, just a dash, we don't want to overdo it.

Still not satisfied? Maybe stir in a little of this (although I prefer the flavor of the rulebook over the manual):

Originally Posted by AremRed

The NFHS Mechanics manual, page 11: "Remember, an officials count (backcourt, throw-in, etc.) may be used to correct an obvious timing error"

Etcetera (a number of unspecified additional items) is pretty open ended.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

We've had this discussion numerous times before on this site.
I've always advocated the following:
1. Only the Referee may correct a timing mistake. The Referee may take input from the umpire(s), but must make the final decision.
2. Once the throw-in is touched inbounds, it is over and any stoppage for a timing error now results in a POI throw-in. There are no do-overs under NFHS rules.
3. 2-7-9 lists the officials counts during the contest. Those are what may be used to correct an unnoticed timing mistake.
4. If an official notices that the clock did not properly start or has improperly stopped and does not wish to halt play immediately because a scoring playing is in progress, the official needs to start a visible count and continue it until either halting play for a correction or to signal that time has expired. Having this count be visible is important because it can be verified via video in the event of a complaint.
5. If the clock improperly starts prematurely, prior to the ball being touched inbounds, an official needs to notice and stop play immediately and before the ball is touched inbounds. The time can then be restored and the game resumed from where that the throw-in was located. If already touched, then POI is required and some small amount of time must be deducted for the inbounds touching.
6. If no visible counts were made while the clock was not properly running, then no correction can occur, other than a small deduction for a throw-in catch or touching. This is unfortunate, but officials can't make their best guess nor use non-visible counts which aren't part of 2-7-9. There does not exist a single NFHS ruling or Case Book play in which an official counts in his head and uses that for a correction.

I disagree that a visible count is required. Can it help you on video? Sure. I'm not really worried about saving my a..as much as getting it right at end of game. The video will play and people will be able to judge from it how much time went by etc. if I count to myself I will trust it and act accordingly. My arm doesn't need to move in my opinion. I don't visibly count 3 seconds in front Court. My determination of 3 counts just the same.

I agree with mostvelse.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BigCat

I don't visibly count 3 seconds ...

(Great post. Maybe Post O' The Week.)

Nor do I, but I would use it in a New York minute to come up with definite knowledge in this situation.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

(Great post. Maybe Post O' The Week.)

Nor do I, but I would use it in a New York minute to come up with definite knowledge in this situation.

If an official called a 3-second violation while the clock was improperly not running, it would be legitimate to remove three seconds from the clock. However, using partial 3-second counts which are mentally done puts the officiating crew on dangerous ground. Why? Because it cannot substantiated in any way and there is no way to distinguish a mental count from simply making up a number in one's head.
In this day and age, decisions need to be verifiable or officials will be accused of making stuff up. Don't put yourself in that situation and use visible counts.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

If an official called a 3-second violation while the clock was improperly not running, it would be legitimate to remove three seconds from the clock. However, using partial 3-second counts which are mentally done puts the officiating crew on dangerous ground. Why? Because it cannot substantiated in any way and there is no way to distinguish a mental count from simply making up a number in one's head.
In this day and age, decisions need to be verifiable or officials will be accused of making stuff up. Don't put yourself in that situation and use visible counts.

The point is not a 3 second count. That is only mentioned because the arm doesn't need to swing. You need to be right in what you decide but don't be afraid to do the right thing. The film will show when the ball is touched etc. Have a little courage and do what you know is right instead of cya. If you know it's 2 seconds take it off. Regardless of whether your arm swings...

It certainly can be substantiated. The film will tell you how much time went off. I do agree with all other points.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

We've had this discussion numerous times before on this site.
I've always advocated the following:

6. If no visible counts were made while the clock was not properly running, then no correction can occur, other than a small deduction for a throw-in catch or touching. This is unfortunate, but officials can't make their best guess nor use non-visible counts which aren't part of 2-7-9. There does not exist a single NFHS ruling or Case Book play in which an official counts in his head and uses that for a correction.

I agree with everything you said except this. The correction rule also allows for "other information". That can be just about anything. If the official is counting, how cares if it is provable on video. I don't care about what is provable. I'm doing what is right and what is supportable by the rules.

As for whether a ruling or case exists allowing it, there isn't one saying you can't do it that way either.

[CJP]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I agree with everything you said except this. The correction rule also allows for "other information". That can be just about anything. If the official is counting, how cares if it is provable on video. I don't care about what is provable. I'm doing what is right and what is supportable by the rules.

As for whether a ruling or case exists allowing it, there isn't one saying you can't do it that way either.

You agreed that there should be a small deduction for the throw in touch.

A dribble and shot are part of the scenario. I am not sure how you can go back to the throw in touch if the play was not blown dead at this point. If a dribble and shot take place, giving the ball back to the throw in team with essentially the same amount of time left is much worse than approximating how much time expired and awarding the ball to the rebounding team or going to the arrow if a rebound was not secured when the whistle sounded. Hopefully some one has a count. If not, we have to do our best to establish that.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by CJP

You agreed that there should be a small deduction for the throw in touch.

A dribble and shot are part of the scenario. I am not sure how you can go back to the throw in touch if the play was not blown dead at this point. If a dribble and shot take place, giving the ball back to the throw in team with essentially the same amount of time left is much worse than approximating how much time expired and awarding the ball to the rebounding team or going to the arrow if a rebound was not secured when the whistle sounded. Hopefully some one has a count. If not, we have to do our best to establish that.

Should be? If possible, but if you don't know how much, you can't.

Who said anything about giving it back to the throwin team? Once the shot is taken, that is no longer an option. You fix the clock with whatever you KNOW (not guess) and go to the POI.

[CJP]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Should be? If possible, but if you don't know how much, you can't.

Who said anything about giving it back to the throwin team? Once the shot is taken, that is no longer an option. You fix the clock with whatever you KNOW (not guess) and go to the POI.

If the throw-in team gets the rebound and you stop the play at this point and only take .5 seconds off for this touch deduction you talk about, you are essentially giving them a do over.

I KNOW that after a dribble, shot, and ball flight time that more than 0.5 seconds came off the clock or whatever subjective amount touch deduction means (this touch deduction you agreed to). Coaches know it too. So you go ahead and do a small deduction for the touch. I will do my best to get it right with what I know.

Edit - I went back to post 22 and you are NOT agreeing with taking a small deduction off for a touch. Sorry about that part.

[ODog]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

5. If the clock improperly starts prematurely, prior to the ball being touched inbounds, an official needs to notice and stop play immediately and before the ball is touched inbounds. The time can then be restored and the game resumed from where that the throw-in was located.

While I generally agree, I will offer the scenario where the throw-in is errant and a.) Going to be stolen or b.) Going to result in a throw-in violation. It can be very easy to see the running clock and blow it dead before realizing you just screwed the defense out of gaining possession. Yes, I've had this happen. Sure, it's the timer's fault and not yours, but nobody is going to see it that way.

In that instance, I'd advise blowing it dead after control is established, and subtracting the time allowed for the touch(es).

[UNIgiantslayers]

I'd like Rich, as an assignor, to weigh in on this. Any other assignors out there that would care to say if you'd support the no visible count time deduction?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by UNIgiantslayers

I'd like Rich, as an assignor, to weigh in on this. Any other assignors out there that would care to say if you'd support the no visible count time deduction?

I'm going to use whatever resources I can, including a count in my or my partner's head. I can't think of a single one of my supervisors who would have a problem with that.