Late in the first overtime of a boys varsity game with the score tied at 47, team A (Visiting team) inbounds the ball from the far end line with 1.94 seconds left on the clock. Instead of throwing it directly inbounds, they toss to another player out of bounds, who then makes the throw in. The interesting part is that the clock keeper turns on the clock when the first throw in to the other out of bounds player was made, thus screwing up (actually the official screwed up by chopping his arm down indicating that the clock should start). The problem is on the thrown in, there was a foul on the defense, which should have been double bonus for team A, thus shooting two with the chance to win. Since the home clock keeper and official screw up however, the visiting team didn't get that foul and the officials simply put the time back on and let the play commence again. Thoughts?

Well, putting the time back on the clock was the correct thing to do. Not more they could have done.

Sometimes officials are their own worst enemy (ie chopping in time when they should not). Every time there is a throwin folowing a score or awarded score we should be aware of the right for inbounding team to pass the ball along endline to another teammate.

What we do know is the foul occurred DURING the throwin. Therefore I have knowledge that the the foul occurred before the ball was touched on the court so clock should not have started.

Put 1.94 seconds back on the clock. Put A on the line for 2 shots. Any other scenario it is not fair for Team A if Team B's foul is not penalized. The foul cannot be ignored.

This has been discussed several times and there is a major disagreement.

By rule it is an official's error and the game is over.

Most feel that the fair thing is to envoke 2-3 and give team A a do-over.

MTD will chime in, incorrectly, that it is a timer's error.

BZ:

You are absolutely correct that I am going to chime in. Daryl and I have discussed this play ad nauseum and Daryl's post is correct. It does not matter whether the official incorrectly signaled the clock to start or the timer started the clock even though the official did not signal the clock to start, the important thing is that the clock was not supposed to start until the throw-in touches or is touched by a player on the court. The game clock started too soon. We know the clock was started incorrectly and we have knowledge as to what time was on the game clock. Mary Struckhoff (NFHS Rules Editor has given me a written confirmation that Daryl's interpretation is correct in an earlier email this season, which I have shared with the Forum.

BZ, you have got to stop giving incorrect information that CANNOT be supported by rule.

MTD, Sr.

I agree most would have a do over. Erroneous in my opininion

It is unfortunate that too many officials will do the politically correct thing because they do not want to offend anyone.

It is equally disturbing that many fans and coaches would be happy with the do-over. If both teams believe they were treated fairly you won't hear any complaints.

But my conscience would not allow me to blatantly disreguard what did happen (B fouled A). If I take away A's rightful opportuntity to attempt freethrows they are entitled to by hiding behind "officials error" then I have put A at a disadvantage by ignoring rules.

Yeah that would be an interpretation where .4 seconds come off the clock without knowledge of ACTUAL time off the clock, which has NO RULE SUPPORT WHATSOEVER.

My opinion is supported 100% by the rules. 5-9-1 and caseplay 5.10.1.C.

You give out wrong information more than any poster on this forum. Cylinder of verticality and Blarges just to name two.

BZ,

I agree wholeheartedly with the interpretation in case play 5.10.1 Situation C.

Why? Because the official did not call anything. Time ran out. Buzzer. Game over.

The rules do not allow me to penalize after the buzzer something I should have done before the Buzzer.

As I reread Rar's original post I see he fails to say whether the foul occurred before the buzzer or after the buzzer. He also fails to say if the officials actually whistled the foul. If RAR will supply this information I can more accurately give an answer.

My ruling was based on an official actually whistled the foul before the buzzer went off. From there I can correct the Timer's mistake and return the clock to the time I had knowledge of. See Casebook 5.10.1 Situation A. It would be the same answer if the play read B1 fouls A1.

Bottom line is I put time back on based on knowledge and also would award team A the penalty for either the foul or violation.



[Edited by Daryl H. Long on Feb 12th, 2005 at 01:50 AM]

But if the ball was not "in play" how could the time be running. Yes, the official did chop the time in, but shouldent (s)he put the few seconds back on the clock?

I'm not sure I understand how this is NOT a timing error.

Let's forget all the complicating stuff. What if the T decides to chop in time as he bounces the ball to A1 for the throw-in and the horn goes off to end the game as A1 catches the ball for the throw-in.

Game over? You gonna run into the locker run and shake hands, congratulating each other on another great job?

Ok, if I understand the sitch correctly I wonder why this a is a correctable error. Since the official started the clock when he should not have.

I'll have to wait until I get my rule book from UPS and dive into this one I guess. Common sense tells me to reset the clock and award 2 shots to A though.

Wingin' it!

On a side note, being a newbie (have not even lost mine yet, will do in March) I find this forum a valuable tool and source of much entertainment regarding my future officiating adventures.

5-9-1

The clock shall be started when the official signals time in.

The clock was started when the official signaled time in, so it IS NOT a timer's error, but an official's error which is covered under 5.10.1.C.

By rule the game is over when the horn went off, unless they blew the whistle for the foul, in this case, BEFORE the horn.

This will be where MTD will say that 5-9-2 thru 4 are the governing rules, when in FACT, they are there to tell the official when to signal.

We have argued this case 3 other times over 2 different forums and I'm not going to do it again.

5-9-1 makes it an official's error.

5.10.1.C says an official's error is not correctable.

2-3 is the only way out even though it is covered.

Let me try again:

What if the T decides to chop in time as he bounces the ball to A1 for the throw-in and the horn goes off to end the game as A1 catches the ball for the throw-in.

You are R. What do you do? Don't quote me any rules, let's pretend I'm Coach A and you just cost me a playoff spot. You going to explain to me on the court why the game is over? Or you gonna wait for me to come banging on the locker room door?

What part of I'm not arguing this again did you NOT get?

Read my first post, and last one too, see that little 2-3 do-over.;)

The part where you won't give a straight answer. I don't have the patience to wade through all those 5.somethings and 2-other things.

You're using 2.3 to do what, exactly? That's all I would like to know.

If it's too much trouble then we'll leave it at that. :shrug:

Just for you Dan.

This case has a new wrinkle, the foul. We also do not know if the horn sounded BEFORE the foul or AFTER.

5-9-1 tells us when the timer starts the clock, so by RULE, the timer started the clock correctly.

5-9-4 tells us that the OFFICIAL signaled the clock to start incorrectly, making this an OFFICIAL'S error.

5.10.1.C tells us that an official's error IS NOT CORRECTABLE, so by rule there is no way to fix this mistake.

Technically since 5.10.1.C deals with a count and not an erroneous chop, 2-3 could be envoked.

What we choose to do with 2-3 is another debate. In the first two arguments time expired before team A got the inbound pass and there was no foul. All that could be done in that case would be a do-over, time back to what it was before the throw-in and team A's ball with endline privleges.

In this case, horn before foul do-over.

Horn after foul, shoot the free throws, and I'm leaning toward putting the time back on the clock.

One poster asks for additional information. Even though it was in the original post, I'll repeat it more clearly. Yes the foul occurred AFTER the buzzer and yes it was whistled.

Look, I tried to uncomplicate this with a simple play. You continue to keep it complicated. So let's try 1 more time. No foul. No running the endline. A simple throw-in by A1 on his endline with seconds left in the game. And the T decides to chop in time as he bounces the ball to A1 for the throw-in and the horn goes off to end the game as A1 catches the ball for the throw-in. We have an official's error which you claim cannot be corrected. So by rule, you claim, the game's over.

You are R. What do you do? Don't quote me any rules, let's pretend I'm Coach A and you just cost me a playoff spot. You going to explain to me on the court why the game is over? Or you gonna wait for me to come banging on the locker room door?

I'm a believe in officials do not cost teams games...ever. This situation was just bad though. The officials were all inexperienced and relatively new at the varsity level. They lost control of the game early and there were elbows flying, curse words coming out, and coachs going livid all going unpunished. It was one of the more poorly officiated HS games i've seen, and I dont' really see a lot that are poorly officiated. The timer was screwing up all game (except in the situation I proposed, it was the officials fault no doubt). I can't see how you can argue this as the timers mistake, when the timer starts the clock BECAUSE of the official's chop. This makes it T's fault. The trail in this case was the Referee for the game.

Bottom line, if the rules are truly on the side of no repeat and just end the game as some of you suggest, I couldn't accept that as an offiical. I don't think the NFHS made rules conceiving of this situation. I know an NFHS basketball board member, and I know that if it was her team (she coachs) that was getting screwed, she wouldn't stand for it.

It would appear to me that the R could invoke 2-5-5:

"The referee shall ... Decide matters upon which the timer and scorer disagree and correct obvious timing errors."

That rule doesn't state whose error can be corrected, only that the R can correct obvious timing errors which we definitely have. Since the foul was after the buzzer, I would probably put 1.94 seconds back on the clock and start from there since we couldn't be sure if the foul would have occured before or after the clock *should* have expired. Just my .02.

Read 5.10.1.C this play is no different, in both cases an official's error caused the game to end.

What do the officials in case play 5.10.1.C say?

Fairness and explanations aside, your play is no different than 5.10.1.C.

By rule the game is over and that is all you can tell them.

In practice I'm giving a do-over, just like in the play that started this thread.

I don't think it is supported by rule, but it is the fair thing to do, so I'm fudging with 2-3.

Yes, please do read 5.10.1.C. It states "There is no provision for the correction of an error made in the official's accuracy in counting seconds." Our situation has nothing to do with the official's accuracy in counting seconds.

The reason it relates is because it is rules support for not being able to correct an official's error in putting time back on the clock.

I guess the, "The clock may not be reset as there are no rule provisions to do this," just escaped your attention?

It can't be fixed because it was not a TIMER'S error, and neither is the case we are discussing.;)

No, it didn't esape my attention. What you're not seeing is that the explaination for it in the next two sentenses. They both state specifically that the reason that situation can't be corrected is because there aren't provisions for correcting an error in the official's count. Our situation doesn't have anything to do with an official's count. It doesn't say anthing about an official correcting there error in starting the clock.

Let's try this situation: There is 2.1 seconds left if the game with B leading 45-44. Your are the R and Lead. Team A has the ball ready for throw in in their back court. A1 (with the ball for the throw in) rolls the ball down the court. A2 lets it roll before touching it but the T inadvertantly chops the clock in. The buzzer goes off before A2 (or anyone else) even touches the ball. What do you do?

I'm not arguing this any more, it is the same situation you did not change a stinking thing.

5-9-1 says the timer starts the clock on the official's signal.

5.10.1.C says we CANNOT put time back on an OFFICIAL'S ERROR.

I have said 4 or 5 times in this stupid thread that by rule the game is over...PAY ATTENTION NOW...in practice I'd go to 2-3 and give a do-over.

That's my point, it's the same situation. You'd go back and start over. Good. I think the error you're making is saying we can't put time back on the clock is you're basing it on the CASE BOOK. In the case described in 5.10.1.C, you wouldn't. But we have a different CASE to consider. It never says anything about not being able to put time back on the clock because of an official's error. Only that the time can't be based on how an official counts.

Maverick,

Glad someone else has taken BZ to task about his misapplication of which rule covers the situation.

In an earlier post I said this play more closely resembles 5.10.1 Situation A because of the addition of foul before the buzzer.

Sinse Rar (the original poster) has clarified questions I asked and has stated now that the foul occurred after the buzzer to signal the clock ran out.

In that case put the time back on the clock and allow A the throwin they were entitled to. i don't call this a "do over" because they never got to "do" in the first place.

You are spending too much time around MTD, if you think the only case play covering an OFFICIAL'S error causing time to expire, is misapplied in a thread about an OFFICIAL'S error causing time to expire. :D

Compare the comment under timing mistakes in the case book, 5-9-1 in the rule book, and what happened in the play in question and it all equals one thing...AN OFFICIAL'S ERROR!

I don't think anyone is arguing that it is not an official's error. But I haven't seen any rule book reference saying you can't correct an official's error in this situation.

Rule book 5-10, case book comment about that rule:

Timing mistakes which may be corrected are LIMITED TO THOSE WHICH RESULT FROM THE TIMER'S NEGLECT TO STOP OR START THE CLOCK AS SPECIFIED BY THE RULES.

5-9-1 After time has been out, the clock shall be started when THE OFFICIAL SIGNALS TIME-IN.

You just said this play is an official's error and 5-10 clearly states that the only time the clock can be adjusted is on a timer's error.

There is no rule or case play that allows for time being adjusted on an official's error.

So as I have said since the first post, by rule you cannot fix it.

In practice I'm envoking 2-3, to fix the mistake, but that is fudging since 5.10.1.C does cover the situation.

Not at all correct. I don't see the word "only" anywhere in 5-10. 5-10 is dealing with timer's mistakes and says officials can correct them. It doesn't say that is the only kind of timing mistake that officials can correct. 2-5-5 does however say that the referee can correct "obvious timing errors" and makes no mention of who caused the timing error. You keep seeing one example of a timing error and thinking that applies to all timing errors.

You are like talking to a freaking rock, I quoted the stupid rule that said ONLY A TIMER'S ERROR MAY BE CORRECTED.

I'm done, you are wrong, and it is obvious you will NEVER get it.

You quoted a rule that doesn't exist. There isn't anything in 5-10 that says it is "limited to" timer's mistakes. Besides, if you say that it clearly states that type of error can't be corrected, then you can't invoke 2-3 because 2-3 says "The referee shall make decisions on any points not specifically covered in the rules." Since you claim it is specifically covered, you'd be wrong on that logic as well.

There isn't anything in 5-10 that says it is "limited to" timer's mistakes. [/B][/QUOTE]Say what? :confused:

Rule 5-10 is called <b>"TIMER'S MISTAKES"</b>. That's the <b>title</b> of the rule, and all that's addressed <b>in</b> rule 5-10 <b>is</b> timer's mistakes.

Say what? :confused:

Rule 5-10 is called <b>"TIMER'S MISTAKES"</b>. That's the <b>title</b> of the rule, and all that's addressed <b>in</b> rule 5-10 <b>is</b> timer's mistakes.

[/B][/QUOTE]

Yes, I agree, which I stated in an earlier post. My point was that there isn't anything in 5-10 that states that timing errors that can be corrected are "limited to" errors made by the timer. 5-10 says that timer's mistakes can be corrected but it doesn't say that is the only type of timing errors that can be corrected.

Yes, I agree, which I stated in an earlier post. My point was that there isn't anything in 5-10 that states that timing errors that can be corrected are "limited to" errors made by the timer. <font color = red>5-10 says that timer's mistakes can be corrected but it doesn't say that is the only type of timing errors that can be corrected</font>. [/B][/QUOTE]What other timing errors can be corrected then? And would you please cite the rule(s) that allows you to correct the timing error(s) that you list.

I can't think of any, but I'm always willing to learn.

What other timing errors can be corrected then? And would you please cite the rule(s) that allows you to correct the timing error(s) that you list.

I can't think of any, but I'm always willing to learn. [/B][/QUOTE]

JR this is the comment in the case book under 5.10:



Timing mistakes which may be corrected are LIMITED TO THOSE WHICH RESULT FROM THE TIMER'S NEGLECT TO STOP OR START THE CLOCK AS SPECIFIED BY THE RULES.

He's been shown that 3 times and he still says it does not say it.:D

JR this is the comment in the case book under 5.10:

Timing mistakes which may be corrected are LIMITED TO THOSE WHICH RESULT FROM THE TIMER'S NEGLECT TO STOP OR START THE CLOCK AS SPECIFIED BY THE RULES.

He's been shown that 3 times and he still says it does not say it.

[/B][/QUOTE]Yeah, I knew that was there, BZ. I was just wondering if he knew something that I didn't know. He says that he does. I guess I won't know for sure until I see his response and the accompanying rules citations that he attaches to it.

Wait.

Maybe I missed something but didn't you tell me that in my sitch you would correct an obvious OFFICIAL'S error?? Let's go to the videotape:

Yeah, looks like you would set aside your rule for my case. What gives??

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.

BZ and JR keep forgetting some of the fundamentals of basketball.

NFHS R5-S9-A1 states: After time has been out, the clock shall be started when the official signals time-in. If the official neglects to signal, the timer is authorized to start the clock as per rule, unless an official specifically signals continued time-out.

R5-S9-A1 is not the all governing article in S9. Articles 2, 3, and 4 defines what actions cause the game clock is to start. Article 1 describes actions that the game officials and timer must follow whenever the conditions of Articles 2, 3 or 4 are met. It does not matter whether the game officials did or did not signal time-in or whether the game clock operator did or did not start the clock when the game official correctly or incorrectly signaled or did not signal at all, Articles 2, 3, and 4 are the only things that cause the clock to start. And in all three articles, the action that causes the game clock to start is contact between the ball and a player on the court.

MTD, Sr.

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.

In other words, those articles define what it means for the clock to *properly* be started. Regardless of what the humans do.

Dan:

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

MTD, Sr.

[Edited by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. on Feb 13th, 2005 at 09:52 PM]

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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 <b>only</b> correct that timing error by using rule 5-10.If you can find anything in the rules that say an official <b>can</b> correct timing errors when they don't know <b>exactly</b> how much time to take on or off the clock, please cite those rules. Feel free to get MTD Sr. to help you too.

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 :D 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! :D

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.

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 <b>only</b> correct that timing error by using rule 5-10.If you can find anything in the rules that say an official <b>can</b> correct timing errors when they don't know <b>exactly</b> 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.

did you read the case book
 

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....

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

Lah me.

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

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. [/B][/QUOTE]Rule 5-9-1--"After time has been out, the clock shall be started when the official signals time-in". Didn't the official signal time-in in this case? Didn't the timer, using the direction provided by this rule, then properly start the clock on the official's signal? Ergo..official's mistake, <b>not</b> a timer's mistake.

Every time I think I'm out, they pull me back in.:D

Rule 5-9-1--"After time has been out, the clock shall be started when the official signals time-in". Didn't the official signal time-in in this case? Didn't the timer, using the direction provided by this rule, then properly start the clock on the official's signal? Ergo..official's mistake, <b>not</b> a timer's mistake. [/B][/QUOTE]

Under what rule is the official authorized to signal the clock be started?

What if he tells the timer to start the game clock as he walks off to start the half. We gonna start the second half with 10:00 (6:00 4th qtr for HS) on the clock?

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

Lah me. [/B][/QUOTE]

Yes, I agree. Everyone agrees that we knew the exact time before the play started. Everyone agrees that the official was at fault. Everyone agrees that it wasn't a timer's error because the timer responded to the official's signal. We've never disagreed on any of these points. The disagreement is whether an official's error can be corrected. As I've stated several times, 2-5-5 states that the referee can "correct obvious <b>TIMING<\b> errors." It doesn't say "timer's" errors.

Now that I've stated my rule reference, can someone state their rule book reference that state's that an official's error can't be corrected? I concede the statement in the case book. However, it is being taken out of context. It is from a comment where the rest of the paragraph is talking about "lag" time. It is trying to illustrate that, even though the clock may be started or stopped properly, "lag" time may exist and itisn't to be considered a "timer's mistake" and, thus, can't be corrected. In addition, the comment is clarifying a situation that doesn't include an official's error. Furthermore, the Ruule that the case is referencing doesn't say anything about not being able to correct an official's error. If we couldn't correct an official's error, it would be stated in the rule book, not only in a comment in the case book.

Yes, I agree. Everyone agrees that we knew the exact time before the play started. Everyone agrees that the official was at fault. Everyone agrees that it wasn't a timer's error because the timer responded to the official's signal. We've never disagreed on any of these points. The disagreement is whether an official's error can be corrected. As I've stated several times, 2-5-5 states that the referee can "correct obvious <b>TIMING<\b> errors." It doesn't say "timer's" errors.

Now that I've stated my rule reference, can someone state their rule book reference that state's that an official's error can't be corrected? I concede the statement in the case book. However, it is being taken out of context. It is from a comment where the rest of the paragraph is talking about "lag" time. It is trying to illustrate that, even though the clock may be started or stopped properly, "lag" time may exist and itisn't to be considered a "timer's mistake" and, thus, can't be corrected. In addition, the comment is clarifying a situation that doesn't include an official's error. Furthermore, the Ruule that the case is referencing doesn't say anything about not being able to correct an official's error. If we couldn't correct an official's error, it would be stated in the rule book, not only in a comment in the case book. [/B][/QUOTE]Well, I was gonna write up a whole buncha things in rebuttal. But....you wouldn't understand them. Call it any way you want to.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Quote:

Well, I was gonna write up a whole buncha things in rebuttal. But....you wouldn't understand them. Call it any way you want to.

So you don't have a rule book reference to base your claim off of? I stated my rule book reference as requested but I haven't seen anyone be able to counter it with a different reference. I wish I had a nickel for every time you've jumped on someone for saying they're going to call something one way without a rule book reference to back it up.

Amen.

Glad to see that there are fellow table brethern who would do the same thing as me.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Maverick

Quote:

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee Quote: Well, I was gonna write up a whole buncha things in rebuttal. But....you wouldn't understand them. Call it any way you want to. So you don't have a rule book reference to base your claim off of? I stated my rule book reference as requested but I haven't seen anyone be able to counter it with a different reference. I wish I had a nickel for every time you've jumped on someone for saying they're going to call something one way without a rule book reference to back it up.

Fixing timing errors are mentioned twice in the rule book, under officials duties in 2-5 and under timer's errors in 5-10.

We have ad nauseum gave you an example of 5-10 fixing timer's errors, with a comment saying only a timer's error can be fixed.

You have maintained that 2-5 and 5-10 are not connected, that 5-10 only deals with timer's errors and that 2-5 deals with all errors. Well where is a specific reference to fixing an official's error with 2-5-5?

You know a rule with a heading official's error or a case play dealing with this situation, care to give it?

2-5-5 starts out talking about when scorers or timers...note the plural...disagree and correct obvious timing errors. I can argue that this means fixing a timing error caused by the two timers disagreeing. This rule gives the official the authority to fix a timing error under 5-10.

Again, expand on this 2-5-5 claim. Show where it says it is seperate from 5-10.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Maverick

Quote:

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee Quote: Well, I was gonna write up a whole buncha things in rebuttal. But....you wouldn't understand them. Call it any way you want to. So you don't have a rule book reference to base your claim off of? I stated my rule book reference as requested but I haven't seen anyone be able to counter it with a different reference. I wish I had a nickel for every time you've jumped on someone for saying they're going to call something one way without a rule book reference to back it up.

I gave you rules references. You don't choose to believe them. That's fine with me. You don't have a clue what you're talking about and it's a waste of time arguing with you anyway. Iow, go ahead and call anything you want to and don't worry about the rules.

OK. So we agree that it's mentioned twice.

Quote:

We have ad nauseum gave you an example of 5-10 fixing timer's errors, with a comment saying only a timer's error can be fixed. You have maintained that 2-5 and 5-10 are not connected, that 5-10 only deals with timer's errors and that 2-5 deals with all errors. Well where is a specific reference to fixing an official's error with 2-5-5?

2-5-5 gives the referee the power to correct obvious timing errors, it doesn't restrict how they occured.

Quote:

You know a rule with a heading official's error or a case play dealing with this situation, care to give it?

I don't know of one. That's my point. I'm saying there ISN'T a rule specifically stating that official's errors can't be corrected. The referee has the ability to make any decisions he/she deems necessary under 2-3 and 2-5-3 through 2-5-6. You're the one who keeps claiming that the rules state that an official's error can't be corrected. Where is the rule reference for that?

I don't believe scorer and timer are plural in that rule. The rule book I'm looking at says "Decide matters upon which the timer and scorer disagree and correct obvious timing errors." I've never seen a game with two timers so I'm not sure how they could disagree. The scorer doesn't keep any timing information so they couldn't disagree on timing issues. So the timing issue could only be caused by a timer's mistake (covered in 5-10) or something out of the timer's control such as an official's error, scoreboard malfunction, etc. The possibilities aren't spelled out; only that the referee has the ability to correct them.

You know, I really, really like that rule that says something about "If da book doesn't fix it, YOU can!"

Not sure I have the vocab exactly right but....

I like that one!

I had the 2000-1 book at my computer and they have since changed it to timer and scorer from timers and scorers, but it still has no baring on the discussion at hand.

2-2-5 says officials may correct obvious timing errors and 5-10 tells us which errors may be corrected, there is a reference to official's errors in timing not being correctable in 5.10.1.C.

The fact that there is not a case or rules reference about fixing an official's error causing the clock to start, while we do have a reference to only being able to fix a timer's error, should tell you all you need to know.