Starting count - at 0 or 1?

[so cal lurker]

Originally Posted by bucky

Indeed, so based on that rational, the ball can be at the disposal of a player for an inbound, the count started, but no visual count seen yet. Correct?

CASE: A1 scores. B1 grabs the ball to inbound it. When is the official's count seen by everyone? Ruling: At one second.

Explanation: In the judgement of the official for this case, the ball is considered to be at the disposal of B1 when B1 grabs the ball. The official starts his count in his head and the first visual signal of the official's count would be at one second.

Correct?


Given all this, the ball can be at the disposal of a player and the official's count can be started all without a visual signal.

Correct?

The answer to the first question is clearly no. The arm swing ends at one second. So the visual cue is pretty much as soon as the count starts.

As to the second, I suppose there is a brief moment between the time the referee thinks "Ah, ha, it is at his disposal!" and the arm motion actually starts. But it should be far less than a second.

[just another ref]

On the subject of counts: I have heard all the stories about the importance of a proper count, all the way from the accuracy of the count itself to the importance of doing it with the correct hand. (Count with the hand closest to the thrower so he can see it. Seriously?) I see the importance of the visible count for closely guarded and for the OP, but for anything else, I really don't see the need for a visible count at all. Has anyone ever actually had a problem because of a visible count which was absent altogether, wrong number of swings on a violation, or.......?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by just another ref

On the subject of counts: I have heard all the stories about the importance of a proper count, all the way from the accuracy of the count itself to the importance of doing it with the correct hand. (Count with the hand closest to the thrower so he can see it. Seriously?) I see the importance of the visible count for closely guarded and for the OP, but for anything else, I really don't see the need for a visible count at all. Has anyone ever actually had a problem because of a visible count which was absent altogether, wrong number of swings on a violation, or.......?

All the visible part of it really does is show someone that you're counting and how fast.

Originally Posted by just another ref

On the subject of counts: I have heard all the stories about the importance of a proper count, all the way from the accuracy of the count itself to the importance of doing it with the correct hand. (Count with the hand closest to the thrower so he can see it. Seriously?) I see the importance of the visible count for closely guarded and for the OP, but for anything else, I really don't see the need for a visible count at all. Has anyone ever actually had a problem because of a visible count which was absent altogether, wrong number of swings on a violation, or.......?

Whenever I'm chopping I try to put the chopping arm toward the table so they can see it better. Thus, the count goes to the other arm.

[bucky]

Originally Posted by so cal lurker

The answer to the first question is clearly no. The arm swing ends at one second. So the visual cue is pretty much as soon as the count starts.

As to the second, I suppose there is a brief moment between the time the referee thinks "Ah, ha, it is at his disposal!" and the arm motion actually starts. But it should be far less than a second.

I have to respectfully disagree with the answer to the first question and it looks as if you are saying yes by your sentence "The arm swing ends at one second." Clearly time elapses from 0 to one second at which time there would be no visual indication of a count.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by bucky

I have to respectfully disagree with the answer to the first question and it looks as if you are saying yes by your sentence "The arm swing ends at one second." Clearly time elapses from 0 to one second at which time there would be no visual indication of a count.

There's the start of the swing and the motion of the arm. The same thing that happens between 1 and 2 (etc.). No one is complaining "hey -- you stopped your count" during that interval

[Pantherdreams]

Look.

You are getting five arm movements. You can also count 1001 or 1 Mississippi I don’t care. By the time my arm gets out and back you’ve gotten 1 of those, you get 5 full ones. And as per Roman generals instructions a distinct pause after last chop before whistle blows.

[diehardmason]

Originally Posted by Pantherdreams

Look.



You are getting five arm movements. You can also count 1001 or 1 Mississippi I don’t care. By the time my arm gets out and back you’ve gotten 1 of those, you get 5 full ones. And as per Roman generals instructions a distinct pause after last chop before whistle blows.

Totally agree. Some simple things we over complicate. Count 1-5. If you make it to five blow your whistle.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[bucky]

Sure, everyone's input is great and makes sense. I am not trying to complicate the count. I am trying to answer one single question: Is there a count without a visual signal? Unless you visually signal an arm movement at 0, the answer is yes.

Another thread had a debate as to when the ball was at the disposal of an inbounder, the visual 5 second count, etc. It is clear that the ball can be at the disposal of a player and a count started but yet, not a visual signal.

[so cal lurker]

Originally Posted by bucky

Sure, everyone's input is great and makes sense. I am not trying to complicate the count. I am trying to answer one single question: Is there a count without a visual signal? Unless you visually signal an arm movement at 0, the answer is yes.

Another thread had a debate as to when the ball was at the disposal of an inbounder, the visual 5 second count, etc. It is clear that the ball can be at the disposal of a player and a count started but yet, not a visual signal.

You are way, way, way overthinking this. The whole point of the arm movement is it takes a second--five arm movements = five seconds. So the arm movement should be starting at the time the official is starting the count. Is there going to be some fraction of a second between the time the official decide its time to start the count and the time a spectator can recognize the visual movement of the arm? Sure. But who cares.

(If that doesn't do it, think of a the difference between a clock that counts down from 8:00 in whole seconds and one that shows the hundredths. Typically the clock that only shows seconds won't move for a second; but the clock that shows hundredths instantly goes to 7:59.99. Those scrolling hundredths are the same as your moving arm.)

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by bucky

I have to respectfully disagree with the answer to the first question and it looks as if you are saying yes by your sentence "The arm swing ends at one second." Clearly time elapses from 0 to one second at which time there would be no visual indication of a count.

My arms start down by my side. When I deem ball at disposal, I start counting "one thousand...". When I start count in my head my arm comes up to my chest. It goes out as I say "one." It comes in to my body as I say"one thousand"....and back out when I say "2." And so on. The visual indicator at the start is my arm going up to my chest.