Didn’t we beat this horse a couple of months ago?

Extra Diligence ...
 

Good advice, especially the part about extra diligence. Nice choice of words.

Sure ...
 

If they have a timeout? Sure. If they don't have any timeouts? Sure, at the expense of a technical foul. Otherwise? No free timeouts.

NCAA, I would subtract 0.3 automatically. NFHS, I would do so as well, if the officials instantly realize that the clock failed to start. Since NFHS is silent on this situation, I will use a solution that is there: the NCAA solution.

Run Silent, Run Deep (1958) ...
 

Silent?

Basketball Rules Interpretations - 2009-10
SITUATION 11: Team B scores a goal to take the lead by one point. A1 immediately requests and is granted a timeout with three seconds remaining in the fourth quarter. Following the time-out, Team A is awarded the ball for a throw-in from anywhere along the end line. A1 passes the ball to A2, who is also outside the boundary; A2 passes the ball to A1 who is inbounds and running the length of the court. The timer mistakenly starts the clock when A2 touches A1’s pass while standing outside the boundary. An official notices the clock starting on A2’s touch (a), before A2 releases the throw-in pass to A1, (b), while A2’s throw-in pass is in flight to A1, or (c), as soon as A1 catches the throw-in pass. RULING: This is an obvious timing mistake and may be corrected. In (a) and (b), the official shall blow the whistle, stop play and direct the timer to put three seconds on the game clock. Since the throw-in had not ended, play is resumed with a Team A throw-in from anywhere along the end line. In (c), the official may put the correct time on the clock, but must make some allowance for the touching by A1 – likely 10ths of a second, if displayed. The ball is put in play nearest to where it was located when the stoppage occurred to correct the timing mistake. A “do over” is not permitted in (c), since the throw-in had ended. (4-36; 5-10-1)

What I meant is that NFHS has no explicit coverage in the rules for a situation where the clock starts and is immediately stopped, or where the clock is immediately stopped because it failed to start. NCAA does, and that is why I would use the NCAA rule to cover this gap. The solution to (c) in your example says that 10ths of a second need to be taken off. I would take off .3, because it takes that much time to catch a ball and do something else with it (by rule, one cannot catch and shoot with .3 or less on the clock).

Another, "We are making this way too complicated" situation.

If you know the clock was supposed run, take some time off the clock. What it means as definite knowledge is really not that deep. Yes the NCAA has an exact time that should at the very least come off the clock, but what if more than .3 should have come off the clock? Can people stop making something that is not that hard so complicated?

Peace

The NFHS isn't silent on the situation. You're making up your own rule. The NFHS says you can take time off based on definitely knowledge and definite knowledge is comprised of counts that you may have had. That is it. If you don't have a count (visible or mental), you don't take time off. Period. You don't say it must have been at least X because the NCAA does it. That just is not supported by rule (in NFHS).

It makes it hard to keep it simple when there are those who suggest that something be done that is counter to the rules. The simple thing is to take off whatever time you "know" to have elapsed, not guess at some number.

Well, there are still people that make that complicated. Taking time off is not an exact science. So if you take off 7 seconds as opposed to 5 seconds, there are people that will claim you do not have definite knowledge to make the distinction.

Peace

We've beaten the clock bungling horse to death, but what have you to say about the blarge? It looks to me as though the lead was oblivious to the center official's foul signal, and should have let him have the call. However, after both officials made their calls, the situation was handled properly. The team on offense at the time of the foul regained the ball at the point of interruption, and the game continued from there, albeit with somewhat less credibility for the officials.

Imagine this exact situation, only the ball was already in the FC in opposite corner as C, and C makes a PC call while L (who had a great look and was in his PCA) had a block. We had to go double foul as well, and that made for a long night. That ball watching partner is the lone amigo on my blocked partners list after that one.

This is a pretty visible situation for that crew, unfortunately. They messed up during the play but they at least adjudicated it correctly following the blarge mishap.

If they had discussed this in the pre-game and took the position of many that the this is the lead's play, then not sure why we would care what the lead is doing here? The Center or outside official on these plays is usually the one that is told to not signal at all. So if there was a pre-game with that position, then the lead is doing what was expected. ;)

Peace

I guess so. The CCA manual recommends that an out-of-area official wanting a call should make an extra blast on his whistle, and that is what the C would have done in an NCAA game, if it was pregamed that it was the lead's play. Is there a similar procedure in the NFHS manual?

However, the play on the video was on the center official's side of the court, so he should be the one responsible. If it was me as the center, I would have made the call, because it was on my side, and I had the better angle. On center-side drives, C is the primary official, transition or no transition, and the Lead's interjection started this whole kettle of fish.