Interesting Situation...and unfortunate

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Dan:

It looks like you, Daryl, and Camroon, and I are the only people that get it.

MTD, Sr.

Mark, as much as I hate to say it, we agree.

As do Daryl and Camroon. Whoever he is.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally posted by Dan_ref

Mark, as much as I hate to say it, we agree.

As do Daryl and Camroon. Whoever he is.

Camron Rust, I guess I spelled his name incorrectly. I will have to redit my post.

MTD, Sr.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
BZ and JR keep forgetting some of the fundamentals of basketball.

MTD and his pet rat keep forgetting the rules and keep trying to insert their own instead.

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

MTD and his pet rat keep forgetting the rules and keep trying to insert their own instead.

Pet rat??!!!

Damn. That's no way to speak about Camroon.

btw, pass the cheese...squeek squeek

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

MTD and his pet rat keep forgetting the rules and keep trying to insert their own instead.

JR:

Who are you calling a rat? No one has stooped to calling anybody names until your most recent post. You should be ashamed of yourself.

MTD, Sr.

P.S. My analysis of R5-S9 is correct though, as usual.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
[/B]

JR:

Who are you calling a rat? No one has stooped to calling anybody names until your most recent post. You should be ashamed of yourself.

MTD, Sr.

P.S. My analysis of R5-S9 is correct though, as usual. [/B][/QUOTE]Actually, Mark, I was kinda thinking of you and your buddy, the Preacher. For some reason, the two of you seem to remind me of Ben and Willard. Btw, did you ever tell Willard that he shoulda been ashamed of himself too when he was name-calling?

Your analysis of R5-9 isn't germane or applicable to the argument either. Bafflegab, Mark, nothing but bafflegab.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

JR:

Who are you calling a rat? No one has stooped to calling anybody names until your most recent post. You should be ashamed of yourself.

MTD, Sr.

P.S. My analysis of R5-S9 is correct though, as usual. [/B]

Actually, Mark, I was kinda thinking of you and your buddy, the Preacher. For some reason, the two of you seem to remind me of Ben and Willard. Btw, did you ever tell Willard that he shoulda been ashamed of himself too when he was name-calling?

Your analysis of R5-9 isn't germane or applicable to the argument either. Bafflegab, Mark, nothing but bafflegab. [/B][/QUOTE]



ROFLMAO

[Maverick]

Originally posted by blindzebra


I said I would do what is fair even though it is not supported by rule.

The other side is incorrectly saying that IT CAN BE FIXED by rule 5-10. There is no rule support to fix this situation.

I have been claiming the total opposite. I have been saying that 5-10 has nothing to do with this situation because it wasn't a [B]TIMER'S[\B] (who is a person) mistake, it was a [B]TIMING[\B] (a procedural) mistake. You're the one who keeps claiming it falls under 5-10 by continually citing a case book play that references that rule. I've said from the start that it falls under 2-5-5 where the referee can correct an obvious timing error. Now, MTD, Sr. has a point in saying that the timer should have known not to start the clock until the rules state it should be started which is correct but I'd rather have the timer reacting to my signals than trying to decice if I'm right or not (not trying to start another arguement, MTD, so don't take it as such). I agree with MTD et. al. that the clock wasn't started properly and thus the referee can correct the timing error.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Maverick
[/B]

I have been claiming the total opposite. I have been saying that 5-10 has nothing to do with this situation because it wasn't a [B]TIMER'S (who is a person) mistake, it was a TIMING[\B] (a procedural) mistake. You're the one who keeps claiming it falls under 5-10 by continually citing a case book play that references that rule. I've said from the start that it falls under 2-5-5 where the referee can correct an obvious timing error.
[/QUOTE]You are partially right, Maverick. A referee can correct a timing error under rule 2.5.5. What you don't seem to understand though is that the referee can now only correct that timing error by using rule 5-10.If you can find anything in the rules that say an official can correct timing errors when they don't know exactly how much time to take on or off the clock, please cite those rules. Feel free to get MTD Sr. to help you too.

[tomegun]

Wow, I guess between someone interrupting me and the whole back and forth I don't even know which side I agree with. I do know that I would put the time on the clock and go from there. I cannot go into the locker room knowing that I made a mistake that didn't allow a team to try for a win. I don't even want to mention any rules here because that has been done enough I would scratch my head if an assigner or rules interpreter had a problem with me for doing this.

One thing I find funny about this whole post is BZ has been done with it about 4 times!

[Timer]

Mark where does it say the timer is authorized to IGNORE the signal?

The clock starts on the signal, articles 2, 3 and 4 are when that signal SHOULD be given.

Coming in late to this discussion, but as my handle shows, I'm interested. I'm a timer for a NCAA D1 institution with 20 years behind the panel. Because mechanics vary greatly from individual to individual, I've learned not to rely on the chop motion alone in starting the clock. Part of my job, as I see it, is to be knowledgeable of what's happening on the court.

In this particular situation, IF I had a clear view of what was happening on the end line, I'm not looking for a chop. I'm watching the ball and the players.

Part of EVERY pre-game meeting between the floor and table officials invaribly includes the Lead saying "Keep us out of trouble." In the play described, IF I had clear view, and IF I knew A2 was also OOB, the clock isn't starting.

By literal rule I know that's not correct, but I also know it's the correct thing to do based on the "keep us out of trouble rule."

All that goes out the window if I'm screened and don't have a good look. Then I'm looking for a chop.

[Maverick]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

I have been claiming the total opposite. I have been saying that 5-10 has nothing to do with this situation because it wasn't a TIMER'S[\B] (who is a person) mistake, it was a TIMING[\B] (a procedural) mistake. You're the one who keeps claiming it falls under 5-10 by continually citing a case book play that references that rule. I've said from the start that it falls under 2-5-5 where the referee can correct an obvious timing error.

You are partially right, Maverick. A referee can correct a timing error under rule 2.5.5. What you don't seem to understand though is that the referee can now only correct that timing error by using rule 5-10.If you can find anything in the rules that say an official can correct timing errors when they don't know exactly how much time to take on or off the clock, please cite those rules. Feel free to get MTD Sr. to help you too. [/QUOTE]

I agree, you can't correct the time unless you have specific knowledge of what to reset it to. However, the original post said there was 1.94 seconds left when they had the ball out of bounds so we do know specifically what to reset the clock to. Thus, reset the clock to that time and start again.

[cmathews]

Maverick,
Did you read the Case Book? Specifically the comment under 5.10.1.b, which I might add BZ has displayed at least 3 times....That, Maverick, is where we would come up with this very strange idea that you can only correct errors related to timers mistakes....Odd I know, but that is where we get these strange ideas....

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Maverick
[/B]

I agree, you can't correct the time unless you have specific knowledge of what to reset it to. However, the original post said there was 1.94 seconds left when they had the ball out of bounds so we do know specifically what to reset the clock to. Thus, reset the clock to that time and start again. [/B][/QUOTE]Yup, 1.94 seconds when the official made a mistake by chopping the clock in prematurely. Just like BZ has been telling you for days. There was no timer error to correct. Now that we have that out of the way, hopefully, please cite a rule that says we can correct the official's mistake.

Lah me.

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

I agree, you can't correct the time unless you have specific knowledge of what to reset it to. However, the original post said there was 1.94 seconds left when they had the ball out of bounds so we do know specifically what to reset the clock to. Thus, reset the clock to that time and start again. [/B]

Yup, 1.94 seconds when the official made a mistake by chopping the clock in prematurely. Just like BZ has been telling you for days. There was no timer error to correct. Now that we have that out of the way, hopefully, please cite a rule that says we can correct the official's mistake.

Lah me. [/B][/QUOTE]

So, you're telling us the clock was properly started in this case?

Please provide a rule to back up your argument that it is proper to start the clock in this sitch.