Sitch 2

[Maverick]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

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]

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

I would also agree that the rule is unambiguous. However, it would appear to me that the game situation IS ambiguous. If I'm officiating, I have no way to tell if the timer actually started the clock or not without directly asking him/her. (In the original post it is stated that it was "not started" but how do we know???) As Dan said, it is possible to start and stop the clock without time running off the display. In that case, it would meet the second requirement (already having met the first). Since the clock should have started, I wouldn't go looking for an arguement. I'd leave the clock where it is, assume that it did start and stop as directed and allow the sub.

[bob jenkins]

I'm letting the sub in.

Suppose the timer didn't start the clock for "a long time" while play continues up and down the court. Finally, someone recognizes the fact. No one know how much time elapsed, but all agree it was "probably" at least a minute.

No one would reset the clock, but some of you wouldn't allow the player to reenter? I can't believe that's the intent of the rule.

I also seem to recall that there is an NCAA AR that deals with a throw-in going almost immediately out of bounds and the clock starting.

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

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]

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. [/B][/QUOTE]

Oooohhhhhh...the original play. Sorry.

In the original play I assume the clock has been properly started & stopped with zero time coming off on the quick chop/whistle and let A1 re-enter. I am allowed to do this because I do not have definite knowledge to the contrary.

As you said, I'm not allowed to guess.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Dan_ref
[/B]

In the original play I assume the clock has been properly started & stopped with zero time coming off on the quick chop/whistle and let A1 re-enter. I am allowed to do this because I do not have definite knowledge to the contrary.

As you said, I'm not allowed to guess.

[/B][/QUOTE]You assume?

Lpalmer3 stated emphatically in the very first post of this thread that the clock was not started. Iow, it did not stop and start with zero time coming off. Lpalmer3 has never lied to me before. Are you accusing lpalmer23 of lying? If not, would it now be presumptious of me to say that lpalmer3 actually did give you definite knowledge to the contrary, thus removing any possibility of a guess? Ergo, as the clock never was started, the substitute could not re-enter under R3-3-4.

Winner gets to roll around in deersh*t and chase the mailman.

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

In the original play I assume the clock has been properly started & stopped with zero time coming off on the quick chop/whistle and let A1 re-enter. I am allowed to do this because I do not have definite knowledge to the contrary.

As you said, I'm not allowed to guess.

[/B]

You assume?

Lpalmer3 stated emphatically in the very first post of this thread that the clock was not started. Iow, it did not stop and start with zero time coming off. Lpalmer3 has never lied to me before. Are you accusing lpalmer23 of lying? If not, would it now be presumptious of me to say that lpalmer3 actually did give you definite knowledge to the contrary, thus removing any possibility of a guess?

Winner gets to roll around in deersh*t and chase the mailman. [/B][/QUOTE]

Well, unless lpalmer3 was sitting at the table or the table buzzed him over to fess up their obvious error I don't see how he can be certain the clock was *not* started. Maybe he's got ESP? Or maybe he was just guessing that it didn't start. Hey, are we allowed to guess??

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Dan_ref
[/B]

Hey, are we allowed to guess??

[/B][/QUOTE]Yes. I do it on approximately 56.3% of all my calls.

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Hey, are we allowed to guess??

[/B]

Yes. I do it on approximately 56.3% of all my calls. [/B][/QUOTE]

OK...you win...

[lrpalmer3]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
Lpalmer3 has never lied to me before.

I'm flattered. This is the first 4-page discussion that I've read from start to finish, and I'm amazed.

It seems obvious that there are 2 groups of officials, ones that apply the rules by the letter, and ones that apply rules by their own interpretation. Too much of either extreme is dangerous for the game. Coordinators and assignors generally find officials that officiate to their liking. And generally, the higher the level of the game, the more interpretation is encouraged.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by lrpalmer3

I'm flattered. This is the first 4-page discussion that I've read from start to finish, and I'm amazed.

It seems obvious that there are 2 groups of officials, ones that apply the rules by the letter, and ones that apply rules by their own interpretation. Too much of either extreme is dangerous for the game. Coordinators and assignors generally find officials that officiate to their liking. And generally, the higher the level of the game, the more interpretation is encouraged.

Don't get too carried away pigeon-holing officials now. Just because someone here says that the rule is the rule doesn't mean that they might kinda ignore a few of these strict interpretations sometime in favor of a little common sense- especially at the lower levels. For instance, in this case with the screw-ups, I'd just bring the sub in and get the damn game going again. I sure wouldn't waste any time arguing it with somebody.

Iow, don't do as I do. Do as I say.

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Don't get too carried away pigeon-holing officials now. Just because someone here says that the rule is the rule doesn't mean that they might kinda ignore a few of these strict interpretations sometime in favor of a little common sense- especially at the lower levels. For instance, in this case with the screw-ups, I'd just bring the sub in and get the damn game going again. I sure wouldn't waste any time arguing it with somebody.

Iow, don't do as I do. Do as I say.

Always keeping in mind, Luther, that Jurassic is an assignor.

[lrpalmer3]

True, pigeon-holing isn't fair to do.

Just seems rediculous to argue this point for 4 pages. After 2 pages, let us agree to disagree.

Just noticed that I'm now a "senior member". My life is complete.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by lrpalmer3

Just seems rediculous to argue this point for 4 pages. After 2 pages, let us agree to disagree.

It's not ridiculous to me. Someone may have a new point to make. Someone might want to iterate an old point in a slightly different way. Someone might decide to come at the situation from a completely different angle. Whether we agree with someone or not in these discussions, or even maybe think that their point is just plain stoopid,isn't really germane. It's a forum and everybody should have their say. If anyone gets carried away, the mods will take care of it. Jmo.

I wasn't gonna reply, but I was hoping that my post mighta brought this thread up to 5 pages, so I thought what the hell......

[David M]

Originally posted by lrpalmer3
True, pigeon-holing isn't fair to do.

Just seems rediculous to argue this point for 4 pages. After 2 pages, let us agree to disagree.

Just noticed that I'm now a "senior member". My life is complete.

Maybe this will bring it to 5 pages. I don't have my rule book with me but isn't there something about a 1 second lag time for timer?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by David M

Maybe this will bring it to 5 pages. I don't have my rule book with me but isn't there something about a 1 second lag time for timer?

Yup, but if the timer doesn't stop the clock within his allowable 1-second lag time, the referee can only put time back on the clock if he has specific knowledge of exactly how much time to put back on. No guessing allowed. The "COMMENT" attached to case book play 5.10.1SitB is a good read on lag time.

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
...is a good read on lag time.

That's a phrase you don't hear every day!