Sitch 2

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Daryl H. Long
Jurassic is too concerned about putting bafflegab in all his posts lately.

Guess if he learns a new word all logical impulses of his brain cease.

If he is not smart enough to make a decision of elapsed time in case timer failed to do his duty and it is necessary for Referee to do so per Rule 5.10.1&2 then maybe he better just be the umpire in all his games.

Daryl,the word "bafflegab" fits you to a T. You quite simply have no rules justification to do what you're attempting to do. You're also citing rules that aren't in the least bit relevant. You also have no comeback at all to the very simple fact that the clock never started in this situation, which is a prerequisite to let the sub back in under R3-3-4. Instead of looking for something else to bolster your extremely weak argument, you run down the person disagreeing with you instead. Yup, if you don't agree with the "Preacher", then the Preacher says that you are just not smart enough to understand his words from on high.

You seem to work under the premise of "bullsh*t baffles brains" when you post, Preacher. Nothing but bafflegab, Daryl, sheer bafflegab!

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Daryl H. Long
Chuck,

I just want to make sure we are on the same wavelenght of which scenario we are discussing. Maybe then we can come to some sort of agreement.

Scenario 1.
A1 starts try.
B1 fouls A1.
Try successful
Whistle.
A1 is injured.
A6 replaces A1 and shoots free throw.
Misses and bounces off rim.
While ball in air and before ball is touched B2 fouls A2.
Whistle.
A1 reports to scorer's table as a sub.

In this case the clock did not start because the foul preceded touching of the ball. Timer acted properly and did not start the clock. As the official I would tell A1 he would have to wait until next opportunity to sub after clock has started properly.

Do you agree?

More freaking bafflegab. This post has got absolutely nothing to do with the argument we've been having. We are arguing about your previous proclamations, as follows:

"If the foul by B was AFTER the ball was touched then the clock should have been properly started and Sub A1 may enter legally.
Just because the timer FAILED to start the clock properly does not take away conditions for A1 to legally re-enter the game".

Stick to this one. You admit in your own words that the clock never started. That doesn't matter though. You still want to negate a very plainly written rule in R3-3-4. Unfortunately, you have absolutely no rules justification to do so.Bafflegab doesn't make it right.

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by ChuckElias

Instead of offering insults, why can't we discuss the applicable rule. It doesn't have anything to do with being smart. It has everything to do with whether or not the clock was properly started. That's what the rule says must happen. Why is there so much hub-bub about this? The sub may not re-enter until the first opportunity to substitute after the clock has properly started. Period. There's no interpretation that softens the rule to mean "after the clock should've started".

I'm not trying to sound holier-than-thou, but you guys who want to let the player in are just wrong by rule. There's not really any ambiguity for wiggle-room here. Sorry.

So if the clock is properly started and stopped at the whistle with less than 1 second elapsing A1 can't re-enter?

Where does it say that?

If by error the clock is NOT started we can put time on it, but we can't let A1 re-enter?

Where does it say that?

Not only do I "admit" it, but that is the whole point of the argument. The timer did not start the clock. Therefore, the clock obviously did not start properly. Therefore, according to the rule, the sub cannot re-enter. QED.

I cannot believe you're serious about this.

What your argument should have read is:

The official signalled the clock to be properly started. The timer, in error, did not start the clock properly. Under the rules we are authorized to correct such timing errors. Therefore, according to the rule, the sub can re-enter. QED.





[Edited by Dan_ref on Feb 12th, 2005 at 10:34 AM]

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Dan_ref

The official signalled the clock to be properly started. The timer, in error, did not start the clock properly. Under the rules we are authorized to correct such timing errors. Therefore, according to the rule, the sub can re-enter. QED.

[/B][/QUOTE]Exactly what rule are you talking about, Dan?

There is no rule that I know of that will allow you to correct any timing error unless you know exactly how much time to put on or take off the clock. You need precise information to make any timing correction, as per R5-10. You don't have that precise info in this case, and you would have to guess. There is no rule that allows you to guess that I know of. The only thing that you have to work with in this sitch, rules-wise, is the fact that the clock never started. And if it never started, the sub doesn't meet the requirements of R3-3-4 and can't enter. QED.

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

The official signalled the clock to be properly started. The timer, in error, did not start the clock properly. Under the rules we are authorized to correct such timing errors. Therefore, according to the rule, the sub can re-enter. QED.

Exactly what rule are you talking about, Dan?

There is no rule that I know of that will allow you to correct any timing error unless you know exactly how much time to put on or take off the clock. [/B][/QUOTE]

No kidding.

And if I'm allowed to put time on the clock I am, logically (how else does time elapse except by the clock properly starting?), allowed to declare the clock has started properly. Regardless of the timer's obvious error.

Now, what about the case where the timer properly starts & stops the clock with ZERO time coming off the timing device? You gonna let A1 re-enter?

[Mark Dexter]

I think where we have to be very careful in this situation is in the claim that, just because 1:46 remains in the half, the clock didn't run. I've had situations where, 2 or 3 consecutive times, the ball is inbounded then quickly tipped out of bounds - I start and stop the clock, but do it so quickly that no time ran off the clock (this particular clock didn't display tenths of a second).


As for the NCAA ruling, while I think the rule is poorly written, I believe the rule indicates the actual game clock must run (given the caveat above), and that we don't get to go by whether or not the clock should have run.


Now, to really throw a monkey wrench into this rule, consider this situation:

Prior to technical foul free throws, A6 reports in for A1. After the free throws, but prior to the ball becoming live, A7 comes in for A6. One minute later, A1 desires to come back into the game. Per 3-4.11, would you say A1 cannot come back in because the clock never ran with "his or her replacement in the game."?

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by Dan_ref

It doesn't; and I'm pretty sure I never did either.

If by error the clock is NOT started we can put time on it, but we can't let A1 re-enter?

If the clock didn't start when it should have, why would you put time back on the clock?

But even if you take time off the clock b/c it failed to start properly, that doesn't change the fact that it failed to start properly.

I cannot believe you're serious about this.

What your argument should have read is:

The official signalled the clock to be properly started. The timer, in error, did not start the clock properly. Under the rules we are authorized to correct such timing errors. Therefore, according to the rule, the sub can re-enter. QED.

Look, I admit that sometimes I throw stuff out there just to advance the discussion (e.g., the thread about an inadvertant whistle right before a successful goal). But it seems to me that this is soooooo black-and-white and soooooo unambiguous that there isn't any room around what the rule actually says.

So let's review what the rule actually says. When A1 subs out, he is not allowed to re-enter the game until two things happen:

1) There is another opportunity to substitute; and
2) The clock has properly started.

That's it. Those are the necessary conditions for re-entry to the game. As I keep saying, it's unambiguous. There's no case play that lets us interpret (2) as "The clock has or should have been properly started". There just isn't. There probably should be, but there isn't.

Again, I'm not trying to be holier-than-anybody; my way or the highway. I just don't see any rules-based way to allow the sub in the situation that we're talking about.

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by Daryl H. Long
Chuck,

I just want to make sure we are on the same wavelenght of which scenario we are discussing. Maybe then we can come to some sort of agreement.

In this case the clock did not start because the foul preceded touching of the ball. Timer acted properly and did not start the clock. As the official I would tell A1 he would have to wait until next opportunity to sub after clock has started properly.

Do you agree?

I agree with that case. But I'm not sure how that helps us resolove the "should've started" situation.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by ChuckElias
[/B]

So let's review what the rule actually says. When A1 subs out, he is not allowed to re-enter the game until two things happen:

1) There is another opportunity to substitute; and
2) The clock has properly started.

That's it. Those are the necessary conditions for re-entry to the game. As I keep saying, it's unambiguous. There's no case play that lets us interpret (2) as "The clock has or should have been properly started". There just isn't. There probably should be, but there isn't.

I just don't see any rules-based way to allow the sub in the situation that we're talking about.

[/B][/QUOTE]For the record, I agree completely with the above.

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by ChuckElias

It doesn't; and I'm pretty sure I never did either.

If the clock didn't start when it should have, why would you put time back on the clock?

But even if you take time off the clock b/c it failed to start properly, that doesn't change the fact that it failed to start properly.

Look, I admit that sometimes I throw stuff out there just to advance the discussion (e.g., the thread about an inadvertant whistle right before a successful goal). But it seems to me that this is soooooo black-and-white and soooooo unambiguous that there isn't any room around what the rule actually says.

So let's review what the rule actually says. When A1 subs out, he is not allowed to re-enter the game until two things happen:

1) There is another opportunity to substitute; and
2) The clock has properly started.

That's it. Those are the necessary conditions for re-entry to the game. As I keep saying, it's unambiguous. There's no case play that lets us interpret (2) as "The clock has or should have been properly started". There just isn't. There probably should be, but there isn't.

Again, I'm not trying to be holier-than-anybody; my way or the highway. I just don't see any rules-based way to allow the sub in the situation that we're talking about.

We are by rule permitted to take time off the clock when the timer makes an error. IOO we are authorized, by rule, to determine when the clock has started properly even in the case of a timer's error.

Seems clear to me. And notice at no time did I utter 2.3.

It is possible for the clock to properly be started and stopped with zero time elapsing from the clock. This is certainly a possibility in the original sitch, if that's what happened let A1 re-enter.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Dan_ref

[/B]

We are by rule permitted to take time off the clock when the timer makes an error. IOO we are authorized, by rule, to determine when the clock has started properly even in the case of a timer's error.

[/B][/QUOTE]OK, exactly how much time are you gonna take off the clock in this case?

Might as well answer my next question too at the same time:
How did you know that was the exact time that needed to be taken off the clock?

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

We are by rule permitted to take time off the clock when the timer makes an error. IOO we are authorized, by rule, to determine when the clock has started properly even in the case of a timer's error.

[/B]

OK, exactly how much time are you gonna take off the clock in this case?

Might as well answer my next question too at the same time:
How did you know that was the exact time that needed to be taken off the clock? [/B][/QUOTE]

Not sure where this is going but I take off exactly what I have definite knowledge of. (Is this a trick question?)

So I take off the time and let A1 re-enter. What's the problem again?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Dan_ref

OK, exactly how much time are you gonna take off the clock in this case?

Might as well answer my next question too at the same time:
How did you know that was the exact time that needed to be taken off the clock? [/B]

Not sure where this is going but I take off exactly what I have definite knowledge of. (Is this a trick question?)

So I take off the time and let A1 re-enter. What's the problem again? [/B][/QUOTE]If the timer never started the clock, then what "definite knowledge" do you have to take off the time? That's what I can't understand.

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Not sure where this is going but I take off exactly what I have definite knowledge of. (Is this a trick question?)

So I take off the time and let A1 re-enter. What's the problem again? [/B]

If the timer never started the clock, then what "definite knowledge" do you have to take off the time? That's what I can't understand. [/B][/QUOTE]

Really...? OK, try this simple example of when anyone, even you, has definite knowledge:

I'm T on the throw-in at the endline. Before bouncing the ball to A1 I glance at the clock, it says 4:14. A1 completes the throw in, A2 catches it and I start my 10 second count. As we come up the court I glance up & notice the clock is still at 4:14 but my count is at 4. TWEEET. Please take 4 seconds off the clock please.

(Trick question??)

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Dan_ref

If the timer never started the clock, then what "definite knowledge" do you have to take off the time? That's what I can't understand. [/B]

Really...? OK, try this simple example of when anyone, even you, has definite knowledge:

I'm T on the throw-in at the endline. Before bouncing the ball to A1 I glance at the clock, it says 4:14. A1 completes the throw in, A2 catches it and I start my 10 second count. As we come up the court I glance up & notice the clock is still at 4:14 but my count is at 4. TWEEET. Please take 4 seconds off the clock please.

(Trick question??)
[/B][/QUOTE]Um, that's very nice. I agree with it too. You've got exact knowledge in that case and it's OK by rule to then use 5-10. But whatinthehell has it got to do with the situation we're arguing about?

The timer never started the clock. We don't have any exact knowledge of how much time should be taken off, if any. There is no rule that I know of that says that you can now start the clock and take some time off--because you don't have a clue exactly how much time should be taken off. We ain't allowed to guess under 5-10. And if the clock can't be started to take some time off, then the sub can't return, by rule, until the next time it does.