Another first for me

[ronny mulkey]

Frank,

Check out the ruling and comment on 5.10.1.b.

Mulk

[Redhouse]

Was this game played at their site or was it a nuetral site. If it was played at their site, as you are explaining the rules to him and he is disagreeing you may suggest that he have a talk with his timer.

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by Dan_ref

The nfhs lag rule is stupid.

The college rule is the same (ignoring, for the moment, the fact that the clock stops after a basket in the last minute -- had the play been some sort of violation or foul, the NCAA ruling and the FED ruling would be the same).

[FrankHtown]

If you read the comment below 5.10.1 B, it says "the rules do not permit the referee to correct situations resulting in normal reaction time of the timer..."

So, you can put the SEEN time back on the clock if the timer really screws up, but you can't change it if the timer is within a second.

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by ronny mulkey
If Chuck looked at the clock and then blew his whistle - game over. If he blew his whistle and then looked at the clock, then he would be justified in putting the clock back to .6 seconds.

Ronny, does it matter that it was my partner who blew the whistle to grant the TO? I checked the clock when the ball went in (game clock was mounted with shot clock at the top of the backboard), b/c this is what I normally do in a college game.

[Robmoz]

Originally posted by SMEngmann
...In regards to the coaches behavior, I'd definitely report it because it needs to be reported, but I'd cut the guy a little slack. He got screwed by a bad rule and it ended his season, he was good the whole game and he was just venting his anger at the shirt and not you. Again, clearly inappropriate, but 5 months of hard work just fell short in his mind because of a rule technicality. I'm sure if he had the moment back, he'd act differently, so I'd have empathy here and hightail it into the officials room. Way to handle the situation.

Cut him some slack? What about all the two bit f!@#$%^& whores out there who were humiliated by being compared to a referee? What about the breach of confidentiality the coach committed by revealing the pricing between he and his whore. Now she has to lower her rate to stay competitive.....who is gonna compensate her for the losses. The ref? Oh the humanity! Btw, can anyone spare a quarter?

[JosephG678]

I think you could have been equally justified in putting the 0.6 seconds back on the clock and letting them play that out...I know by rule your decision was correct, but it seems you had definite knowledge of remaining time, and perhaps it would have been better to let the game continue. It seems rule interpretation here is flexible (lag time vs. definite knowledge). In the Sacramento game that was referenced, I think the referees had to accept the play despite the slow clock because there is no other way to rectify it (i.e., no definitive knowledge of whether shot was off, and if it wasn't how could you tell?) For NFHS, I believe Rule 2-13 addresses this, that the goal shall count if its unclear whether the shot was off in time or there is a dispute (unless definitive knowledge). But with regards to the lag time, I think it is a delicate balance.

Bottom line for me --> I guess when BOTH situations are justified, what makes for the best possible outcome of a game: rule application or playing action. For me, it's playing action.

PS-Before I get flamed --> The key word is "BOTH." I am not saying, and never will, to set aside a rule to let players decide the outcome. Only when there is two possibilities with equal merit do I say let 'em play...

Ok, ready to be flamed!
Joe

[Edited by JosephG678 on Mar 10th, 2005 at 12:06 PM]

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by JosephG678
It seems rule interpretation here is flexible (lag time vs. definite knowledge).

Bottom line for me --> I guess when BOTH situations are justified, what makes for the best possible outcome of a game: rule application or playing action. For me, it's playing action.

PS-Before I get flamed --> The key word is "BOTH." I am not saying, and never will, to set aside a rule to let players decide the outcome. Only when there is two possibilities with equal merit do I say let 'em play...

Joe, the rules aren't flexible. There aren't two possibilities in this case. Bottom line, both the NCAA and NFHS rule sets says that you can't put the 0.6 seconds back on the clock.

It's never a good idea to ignore plainly written rules just because you don't agree with them. That practice can get yourself in deep doo-doo That's not a flame, either.

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by bob jenkins

The college rule is the same (ignoring, for the moment, the fact that the clock stops after a basket in the last minute -- had the play been some sort of violation or foul, the NCAA ruling and the FED ruling would be the same).

Yes they are the same. I didn't intend to imply they aren't, sorry if it came across that way.

[JosephG678]

Jurassic (& others),

I appreciate the post...Don't have rulebook/casebook in front of me, but I thought if the referee has definite knowledge of time, it can be put back on clock. (I guess the rule says it can't if there is under 1 second?)

In the post, the official stated he saw 0.6. So, my interpretation was that if he didn't see this 0.6, THEN he couldn't put any time back because it would just be his approximation (i.e., there is no definitive knowledge, so one can't just guess).

But if he saw the clock, and it appears that he did, does the rule state the game is over? I think that gives an unscrupulous timekeeper too much control. Also, in my opinion, it kind of contrasts with the whole notion of using tenths of second in this situation. Just my opinion here --> looking foward to what others think...

Joe

[cmathews]

Joseph,
The case book says that you can't correct normal lag time which is defined in the rules as 1 second. So if the whistle blows at .6 and the clock runs out, you can't correct it because it falls in the normal lag time limit. Change the scenario to 1.1 seconds and you can correct it, and when you do correct it you put all the time back up...

[ronny mulkey]

Originally posted by ChuckElias

Ronny, does it matter that it was my partner who blew the whistle to grant the TO? I checked the clock when the ball went in (game clock was mounted with shot clock at the top of the backboard), b/c this is what I normally do in a college game.

I believe that the rule is talking about reaction time for timer. It implies that the timer's reaction time shouldn't be anymore than it would take for an official to react to a whistle and then glance at the clock. The casebook play is referring to an official doing both. I would think it could take 2 officials even longer to react. If I know in my heart that I was not looking at the clock when my partner's whistle went off and then I glanced and caught .6, then I would put it back to .6. Those tenths are cascading under 1.0. .6 looks like .7, .6, .5 to me?

But, the timer can't be reacting to your recognition of the ball going in. You recognized .6 AFTER the ball went in. Somebody has to blow the whistle for the timer. Because the coach can't be granted a TO until after the ball went in, I doubt that if your partner could recognize a coach's request, blow his whistle and expect the timer to react in the .6 that you saw left AFTER the basket went in.

Sounds like you made the right call. Damn good pickup on the clock, BTW. The college officials that work with our high school group are way more clock conscious that us regular high school guys.

Mulk

[ronny mulkey]

Originally posted by FrankHtown
If you read the comment below 5.10.1 B, it says "the rules do not permit the referee to correct situations resulting in normal reaction time of the timer..."

So, you can put the SEEN time back on the clock if the timer really screws up, but you can't change it if the timer is within a second.

Frank,

I may be misreading 5.10.1.b but the lag time is interpreted to be 1.0 second ALREADY. Official blows whistle and then glances at the clock (that takes 1.0 seconds by interpretation) so timer made an obvious mistake. IOW, the official probably blew his whistle at 1.6 and then glanced at the clock to catch .6.

See if it does not read that way to you.

thanks

Mulk

[ronny mulkey]

[/B][/QUOTE]Joe, the rules aren't flexible. There aren't two possibilities in this case. Bottom line, both the NCAA and NFHS rule sets says that you can't put the 0.6 seconds back on the clock.

It's never a good idea to ignore plainly written rules just because you don't agree with them. That practice can get yourself in deep doo-doo That's not a flame, either. [/B][/QUOTE]

JR,

Am I reading 5.10.1.B incorrectly? Even though the play has time running out, I think the comment is referring to any time the official blows his whistle AND THEN glances at the clock, it is interpreted to have taken him 1 second for him to do so.

Forget about time running out. Chuck blows his whistle AND THEN glances at clock and he notices the clock at .6, then he must have blown his whistle at 1.6 (by interpretation).

Straighten me out on this.

Mulk

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by ronny mulkey

Joe, the rules aren't flexible. There aren't two possibilities in this case. Bottom line, both the NCAA and NFHS rule sets says that you can't put the 0.6 seconds back on the clock.

It's never a good idea to ignore plainly written rules just because you don't agree with them. That practice can get yourself in deep doo-doo That's not a flame, either. [/B][/QUOTE]

JR,

Am I reading 5.10.1.B incorrectly? Even though the play has time running out, I think the comment is referring to any time the official blows his whistle AND THEN glances at the clock, it is interpreted to have taken him 1 second for him to do so.

Forget about time running out. Chuck blows his whistle AND THEN glances at clock and he notices the clock at .6, then he must have blown his whistle at 1.6 (by interpretation).

Straighten me out on this.

Mulk [/B][/QUOTE]Chuck said that he was actually watching the clock when the ball went in. That's when his partner's whistle blew for the TO. The case book cite covering the play where the official is already watching the clock is 5.10.1SitD(a)(b).

If Chuck wasn't watching the clock and subsequently had to glance at it when he heard the whistle, then case book play 5.10.1SitB would have been applicable and he would have had to put the 0.6 seconds back up.

The difference in the two plays is whether or not the official is looking at the clock when the whistle blows. The act of looking at the clock after the whistle blows is supposed to take one second, as per the COMMENT after 5.10.1SitB.

Make sense now?