What do you think about the call on the red light situation last night? The referee's took over 10 minutes to view the monitor to see if the shot actually was made in time. The problem was that the clock said 00.0 but the red light had not gone on yet. They ruled that since the red light had not gone on yet that the shot was good and texas won.

Article: http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/column...ndy&id=1701248

What would you have done? Also who's fault is it?

Makes sense to me.
Speed of electricity (186,000 mps?) is quicker than a blink of the eye.
I guess Texas is not just good, but lucky, too.
mick

http://www.officialforum.com/thread/11528

You go by the horn, then the light, THEN the clock (because some clocks can really be at 0.01 - 0.09 seconds and show 0.0)

On some clocks, stopping the clock (for a whistle) when the horn is on can shut the horn off (dumb - but it's what some of us have to deal with). In that case, it's easier to see a light on a replay rather than hear a very short horn (especially true if the replay has no sound).

BTW, since, by rule, the game has not ended, the team scored upon gets the ball for an inbounds with 0.0 on the clock. Good luck with the tip in that situation.

I didn't see the play, but I would assume that since the discussion was whether the ball was released from the hand between the time the clock showed 0:00.0 and the red light came on that the red light indeed would of came on by the time the ball entered the basket, therefore the game would be over as there is no time left, wouldn't it?

The shot lives if released in time.
 

eyezen,
The shot, while in the air after it has left the hand, gets a chance to count whether, or not, the horn goes off and/or the light comes on.
Yes, the officials were looking to make sure the shot was in the air <U>and</U> off the hand.
mick

Yes I understand that. My question is to the post above me.

quote Mark Dexter:

BTW, since, by rule, the game has not ended, the team scored upon gets the ball for an inbounds with 0.0 on the clock. Good luck with the tip in that situation.

Is he refering to the clock stopping when the ball goes in under a minute in the second half?

If so, I'm saying that the clock runs out while the ball is in flight.

Maybe I'm missing something? I was confused by this statement and what rule he was refering to.

eyezen,
Dexter is warped half the time. Wry, dry wit escapes me often. :cool:
Maybe he'll explain.
You may be right about him ...thinking NCAA, but also there's that 0.3 tip thing that we'd have to call with 0.00 showing on the clock. ...A tough call! :)
mick

BTW, if you click quote under the post you wanna answer, that post comes up on your response. If you click add reply you come up with a clean slate.

I'm the one who was missing something (called a brain). Yes - clock can expire while in flight, and game is over. If you clearly saw the ball through the basket before the time expired, then you have to have a reset.

Hmmmmm - interesting. I think I asked about this several years ago (clock starts running at 5.0, you see the shot taken at 0.2) and the decision was that it was legal. The whole 0.3 refers to how much time A1 needs to control it, not how much to let go. (If he releases at 0.2, he must have started his shot before then.)

What I'm not sure on is if either replay system (NBA/NCAA) allows the crew chief/ref to decide on tap/try along with whether or not the ball was released before time expired. Anyone want to take a stab on this part?

I thought that was the speed of light and that electricity took the local "bus"

Mick was actually pretty accurate. The speed of light is approx. 186,000mps, but they have electrical pulses that approach that speed now.

http://physicsweb.org/article/news/6/1/13

I couldn't get your link to work but Mick's answer is incomplete. The speed of light is 186,000 mps (about 1 ft per second) through a vacuum. Electrical signals do not travel through a vacuum, they travel through conductors that are surrounded by insulators (dielectric). In the most commonly used cicuit boards signals propogate at about one half that speed, .5 ft per second which is the same way as saying it takes 2 additional nanoseconds for the signal to travel for every foot of conductor on a reasonably manufactured circuit board. It's much slower per foot if we're talking about cables surrounded by air, which is what we're talking about when we connect a control board to a horn, scoreboard and lights in a basketball arena.

Ok, I know I'm missing something here, but how does 186,000 miles per second equal 1 foot per second? :confused:

Damn, figure YOU would read it closely!

Make that 1 foot per nanosecond.

(Never trust the bright kids... :rolleyes:)

Electrical pulses break light speed record
22 January 2002

Pulses that travel faster than light have been sent over a significant distance for the first time. Alain Haché and Louis Poirier of the University of Moncton in Canada transmitted the pulses through a 120-metre cable made from a coaxial 'photonic crystal'. The achievement raises hopes that data could travel through electronic communications systems at almost the speed of light (A Haché and L Poirier 2002 Appl. Phys. Lett. 80 518).

Interesting. Is this from Woody's link? I still can't get it to work but this must refer to so-called "group velocity" which is well known and does not violate the law that nothing travels faster than light in a vacuum. It's also kinda useless, since what is travelling "faster than light" cannot really be used to transmit signals, in fact what causes this is actually avoided in practice beacause it distorts the original signal. I'm not sure why they say it raises hopes of speeding trasmisson, we can already do that with fiber optics.

Yes, Sparky. It's from Woody's link
Since I estimate a lot, I figgered "186,000 mps?" was close enough for the 100' of wire that electricity had to travel.
Still pretty quick, I think,
While turning off the light switch and jumping into bed, it's always dark before I get there.
mick

Gotcha. I imagine unless your bedroom is the size of Canada even at 10ns per foot of wire the dark would beat you :) But there are times when that 2ns/ft is a killer. :(

Where is everyone getting 186 000 m/s? The speed of light in a vacuum is just slightly under 3 x 10^8 m/s.

186,000 miles per second, vs. 3 x 10^8 meters per second, maybe?

Hey Mark, you didn't work on the Hubble, did ya? ;)

Actually, that was the Pathfinder mission to Mars. Dynes + Newtons = big mess!


Don't tell Padgett this, but apparently the past 2 1/2 years of collegiate level science classes have metrified me. :eek:

Kids! :rolleyes:
We're using miles not meters.
Call it both ways !