Events happened in this order. NCAA Men.

A1 releases try.
B1 fouls A1.
Whistle.
Try is unsuccessful.
Clock shows 1:46 left in half.
A1 is injured.
A6 subs in game to shoot free throws.
B2 fouls A1 rebounding A6's second throw.
Whistle.
Clock shows 1:46 left in half (not started because whistle was very fast).

Can A1 re-enter the game?

B2 went over to A's bench and fouled A1, who is now on the bench, during rebounding action?

Rule 3-4
Art. 12. A player who has been withdrawn or replaced by a substitute may re-enter the game at the next opportunity to substitute, provided that the game clock has been properly started with his or her replacement in the game.

Since the clock has not been started, the player can't come back in.

maybe it needs re written
 

I agree that by rule A1 can't come back in. However maybe they need to rewrite part of the rule. I think it is intended to keep a coach from being able to sub a player out, wait till the ball becomes live, ie at the disposal of the thrower, then sub the player back in. Therefore the rule says after the clock has properly started, as opposed to after the ball has become live. I would be tempted to let him in the game because I think the spirit of the rule has been met since there was action and a foul....IMHO

Re: maybe it needs re written
 

The rule doesn't say after time has run off the clock, does it? I believe it says after the clock has been properly started. IF the timer starts the clock & stops it without any time running off, I'm letting the player come into the game. The timer can flip the switch off & then on and time might not run off the clock.

If the whistle is blown before anyone can touch the rebound, then I would be able to better sell my keeping the sub out of the game.

yes my bad
 

yeah you are right it says started not time run off...why are we trying to keep subs from reentering, if there was actually some playing that occured???

Re: Re: maybe it needs re written
 

I'm not sure you would need to sell this. I believe this is the proper procedure - A1 can return ONLY if the clock was chopped back in.

The key to allowing sub or not is based on if the clock SHOULD HAVE properly started.

If the foul by B was BEFORE anyone else touched the ball then the clock should not have started, therefore sub A1must wait.

It the foul by B was AFTER ball was touched then the clock should have been properly started and Sub A1 may reenter legally.

Just because the timer FAILED to start the clock properly does not take away conditions for A1 to legally reenter the game.

Additionally, since 10th/sec are not showing it would be possible for clock to have been started and turned off with no visible reduction evident. (Example of this would be there were actually 1:46.9 when free throw missed, when ball was touched the clock starts, whistle blows for foul and timer stops clock at 1:46.1. With no 10th showing the clock would continue to show 1:46 both before and after the foul)

Agreed! Exactly what I meant to say!!

Your post was at 03:15pm. Shouldn't you have been on your way to Eastwood M.S. LOL

MTD, Sr.

I chopped in time. I also had a 1 second count in my head. That's definite knowledge to reset the game clock to 1:45.

Oh, and look, low and behold, A1 can come back in.

I couldn't agree more

Got a rule reference for that distinction? My rulebook says "after the clock has been properly started".

Just asking. :)

I think this one goes to intent.

The "properly started" is there to cover the possibility of a timekeeper simply starting the clock when it should not have been started (either deliberately or accidentally). I think you can infer that this phrase means when the official properly indicates that the clock is to be started.

Chuck,

See Rule 5.10.1 and 2.

Comment:The rule you reference is Rule 3.3.4.

In Rule 3.3.1d it talks about a substitute who is ENTITLED to enter.

Rule 2.12 gives the Timer's Duties.

The rules as written assume that the timers are competent and fully understand their duties respecting proper starting/stopping of the device.

If the conditions were such that the clock should have started thus entitling the substitute to reenter should we disregard this rule because the TIMER MADE A MISTAKE?

NO. Why? Because timers mistakes are covered in Rule 5.10.

Rule 5.10.1...the Referee may correct an obvious mistake by the timer to start or stop the clock properly only when he/she has definite information relative to the time involved.

Rule 5.10.2 says...If the referee determines that the clock was not started or stopped properly, or if the clock did not run, an officilas count or other information can be used to make a correction.

See my previous post for the "other information' I considered in making my decision to allow reentry or not.

[Edited by Daryl H. Long on Feb 11th, 2005 at 11:38 AM]

Unfortunately, all that bafflegab above still hasn't changed the <b>fact</b> that the clock actually <b>never</b> did start. You can't take time off the clock now either because you don't have definitive knowledge under R5-10-2 as to how much time should be taken off. Do you take off 3/10 of a second? 5/10s of a second? One second? you just don't know, so you can't take anything off. Under a strict interpretation of R3-3-4, the substitution is not allowed. "Woulda, coulda, shoulda" aren't part of the rules.

I'm not following your bafflegab.

Are you saying the player should NOT be allowed to re-enter until some time has come off the clock?

I don't think the rule says that.

I think the rule does say that. The initial post in this thread says that the clock was <b>not</b> started. It didn't say that it was started and stopped. The rule says that the replaced player can't come back in until the clock has started properly. The clock didn't start at all- properly or improperly.

And how, exactly, do the officials *know* the clock did not start? Properly or improperly?

BTW, what if the crew have their heads up their @sses and we...errr...they go up & down the floor 4 times without the clock starting before a dead ball.

A1 can't re-enter?

And how, exactly, do the officials *know* the clock did not start? Properly or improperly?

[/B][/QUOTE]We know because lrpalmer3 said the clock didn't start in his initial post. We're just answering his questions using that little bit of info.

Anybody know where Chuck got to? He got me into this argument, and now he disappears.

Btw, to answer your other question, if we go up and down the floor 4 times in a JUCO game and the clock didn't start, then I'm taking 16 minutes off the time remaining.

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Feb 11th, 2005 at 01:22 PM]

We know because lrpalmer3 said the clock didn't start in his initial post. We're just answering his questions using that little bit of info.

Anybody know where Chuck got to? He got me into this argument, and now he disappears.

Btw, to answer your other question, if we go up and down the floor 4 times in a JUCO game and the clock didn't start, then I'm taking 16 minutes off the time remaining.

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Feb 11th, 2005 at 01:22 PM] [/B][/QUOTE]

:D

And T up A1 while you're at it...he's gonna get one eventually anyway.

If an event occurs that should result in the clock starting, that is enough to subsequently allow the sub it.

If you interpret it any other way, a timekeeper could keep an opposing sub out of the game by never starting the clock. This would force you to blow the whistle to correct the clock (which was not properly started). Since it was not properly started, you couldn't allow the sub in.

The "properly started" is only there to make sure that a sub doesn't get to come in if the timer starts the clock when they shouldn't have started it.

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.

The initial post in this thread in my opinion did not have enough information. When he said B fouled he did not say what the status of the ball was. Was foul before ball touched or after?

I answered the question using both scenarios.

What is so hard to understand?

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.

I've discussed and explained the rule ad nauseum.

Chuck... Give me an example of a situation in which you as referee would correct a timer's mistake per Rule 5.10.

If you can not think of any then you have to admit that a timer's mistake could never happen and therefore should not be in the Rule book.

Remember also 2 other things when you reply:

1. If you determine timer did not start the clock properly then you ADMIT that it did not start when it SHOULD HAVE.

2. If you determine the timer did not stop the clock properly then you ADMIT it did not stop when it SHOULD HAVE.

Chuck:

That is why Daryl is always the R and I am always the U when we officiate because I always follow that late Danny Doss's advice: Never be the R.

MTD, Sr.

Oh boy, it looks like it is Camroon, Daryl and I against the world on this one.

MTD, Sr.

There are plenty of instances where it's proper for the official to correct a timer's mistake. No one is denying that. That isn't the issue.

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'm not sure what the heck else there is to say. The rule is black-and-white and unambiguous. Sub can't re-enter until the clock starts properly. Timer doesn't start the clock = Sub doesn't re-enter.

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?

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!

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

<i>"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"</i>.

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.

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?

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]

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 <font color = red>the rule</font>, the sub can re-enter. QED.

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

There is no rule that I know of that will allow you to correct any timing error unless you know <b>exactly</b> 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 <b>never</b> started. And if it never started, the sub doesn't meet the requirements of R3-3-4 and can't enter. QED.

Exactly what rule are you talking about, Dan? :confused:

There is no rule that I know of that will allow you to correct any timing error unless you know <b>exactly</b> 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?

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."?

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? :confused:

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.

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

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.

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.

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 <b>exact</b> time that needed to be taken off the clock?

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 <b>exact</b> 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?

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 <b>never</b> started the clock, then what "definite knowledge" do you have to take off the time? That's what I can't understand.

If the timer <b>never</b> 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??)

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.

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.

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.

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.

In the original play I <font color = red>assume</font> 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 <b>not</b> started. Iow, it did <b>not</b> stop and start with zero time coming off. Lpalmer3 has never lied to me before. Are you accusing lpalmer23 of lying? :eek: 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.

You assume?

Lpalmer3 stated emphatically in the very first post of this thread that the clock was <b>not</b> started. Iow, it did <b>not</b> stop and start with zero time coming off. Lpalmer3 has never lied to me before. Are you accusing lpalmer23 of lying? :eek: 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??

Hey, are we allowed to guess??

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

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

OK...you win... :)

http://www.ontariowildflower.com/images/scat_deer.jpg

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. :)

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

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.

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......

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.

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

Exactly what rule are you talking about, Dan? :confused:

There is no rule that I know of that will allow you to correct any timing error unless you know <b>exactly</b> 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 <b>never</b> started. And if it never started, the sub doesn't meet the requirements of R3-3-4 and can't enter. QED.
[/B][/QUOTE]

By that argument, we can NEVER reset the clock (unless you have a portable built-in cesium clock in your brain). It's not humanly possible to know "exactly" how much time should be taken off...+/- a few picoseconds.

By that argument, we can NEVER reset the clock (unless you have a portable built-in cesium clock in your brain). It's not humanly possible to know "exactly" how much time should be taken off...+/- a few picoseconds. [/B][/QUOTE]Camron, if you know of a rule that allows the referee to adjust the game clock without knowing <b>exactly</b> how much time to add or take off it, then would you please cite it for us?

I'm not arguing. I'm telling you what the rules as I know them state. If you know of a rule that states something different, please enlighten me.

Camron, if you know of a rule that allows the referee to adjust the game clock without knowing <b>exactly</b> how much time to add or take off it, then would you please cite it for us?

I'm not arguing. I'm telling you what the rules as I know them state. If you know of a rule that states something different, please enlighten me. [/B][/QUOTE]

My point was no count an official ever has is exact. It's not humanly possible. So, using "exact time" as a criteria for whether you can take time off the clock is in contradiction with reality and also with the case book. You'd never be able to adjust the clock when it fails to start.

Definite knowledge does not equal exact or precise or accurate knowledge. They are all different.

We have rules/cases (don't have my books handy) which say an official count stands even if it is not accurate (official counts too slow or too fast).

The officials count is precise if the official counts the same every time...accurate or not. This has no bearing on the ruling...just that precision/consistency is better than occassional accuracy in these situations.

The rule talks about definte knowledge. Such knowledge may not be accurate or precise but is all we are required to have. If we have knowable information that can be used to come up with some number, we can use it, even if it is not the entire elapsed time.

Example: A1 receives ball in the backcourt from a throwin. A1 takes 7 "counts" to dribble across the division line where he stands unguarded for some unknown amount of time. Eventually, B1 comes out to guard A1 and the official starts a count. After reaching a count of 4, B1 knocks the ball away and OOB. At that time, it is discovered that the clock never started.

It is not known how much time, exactly, has transpired or even if the official's counts were accurate or precise. We don't have exact, precise, or accurate information but we do have definite information. The official counted to 7 and 4. We know that for sure. 11 seconds can and should be taken off the clock. The time that counts were in progress may have only been 8 seconds or 16 seconds in reality, but that doesn't matter, we still take off 11...not accurate, exact, or precise, but definite. We can't just guess, as you state, about the unguarded time. It simply becomes free time.


Now, on the issue of the substitution, if the clock should have been running, the sub can return. The intent of the rule is statisfied...whether you actually adjust the clock or not. As I think I said earlier, the "properly started" part exists to prevent a home scorer from "accidentally" starting the clock so they can get a sub in. By the same reasoning, a home scorer shouldn't be able to "accidentially" not start the clock in order to keep a visiting sub out.


[Edited by Camron Rust on Feb 15th, 2005 at 04:02 AM]