Last week, I had a kid win a game at the line with no time on the clock. First time I'd ever had that in a game. http://www.officialforum.com/thread/18886

Tonight, another first. Regional semi-final HS playoff game. D3 (smallest division in MA) boys game. This had been a great game throughout. Coaches coaching, kids playing hard, but not dirty. Not a lot of fouls in the first half. Decent partners.

Fast forward to the closing seconds of the 2nd half. Team A (higher seed) is winning by 4 points and A1 is fouled with 8.6 seconds. A1 makes the first FT, then misses the second on purpose, I think, so that the clock will run. The tactic works as the rebound is batted around for a couple seconds.

B1 secures the rebound and pushes it upcourt, passes to B2 who hits a 3. Team A now leads by only 2. Coach B screams for a TO and my partner blows the whistle to grant the TO. When the whistle blows, I look at the clock and see 0.6 seconds. The clock then continues to 0.0 and the horn sounds.

I was the referee on this game. Everybody in the place knows that there was time left on the clock. But I know that we don't correct the clock if it falls within that one second of "lag time". ("The rules do not permit the referee to correct situations resulting in normal reaction time of the timer which results in a 'lag' [one second or less] in stopping the clock.") I talk with my partners and we agree that the 0.6 cannot be put back on the clock.

Game over.

Coach B then predictably goes nuts, screaming for us to come back. Then when we don't go back, he follows us into the tunnel. "Even if it's just one-tenth, put it up and let us play it!", which seems to me to be reasonable, but against the rules.

Me: "Coach, if you want me to explain the rule. . ."

Coach B: "Ahhhh, you're nothing but two-bit f$*#@!g whores!"

At which point, I went to the locker room and he was quickly shooed back out of the tunnel.

Now, I am convinced that we administered the situation correctly, despite the unfortunate result. I truly feel awful about having this great game end as a result of a slow timer. So I want to hear the comments from all of you as to (1) whether you agree that we administered the situation correctly and (2) how we might have handled it better to avoid the coach's meltdown.

And skip the advice about reporting the coach; it's already in the works.

Chuck,

(1) I think you nailed the call.

(2) The only thing that comes to mind is run to the locker room and shut the door. That way there's not a chance for the coach to vent on your crew. But, you probably did that anyways. It's understandable that the coach might be/is upset, however that's not an excuse or a free pass to go after the officials and demand time be put back on the clock.

The nfhs lag rule is stupid.

I agree you got it right by nfhs rule. I agree it is reasonable for you to have put the 0.6 back on & let them play. I guess you could have ignored the stupid nfhs rule & put the time back on...of course you would have then posted that A violated on their throw-in and B won the game on a 3 on their throw-in. Stupid rule.

Let us know what comes of your report.

Did I mention the lag rule is stupid.

Report him? I think you should have had him shot.

good job chuck
 

Nice job Chuck, and it really is too bad it had to end that way...as opposed to shooting the coach maybe he should be infested with some awful disease from some 2 bit *$&#(&ing whore, one which requires the insertion of a searing hot rod into a very uncomfortable place :D I gotta quit watching deadwood on hbo....:D

Chuck,

You're worth a lot more than two bits. You did the right thing, by the book, in the most professional manner possible.

That coach may be feeling a bit embarrassed today. I'm not getting my hopes up, but we can always dream....

A couple points, first, I agree the lag time rule could be modified, but how? We don't have the types of replay systems that they have in college, so there's really no way to put an exact time on the board. In most of the situations, I think it's an official's guess as to how much time was left, which is really not better than lag time (I see this a lot with the shot clock, if there's an erroneous reset, the conclusion will be something like "Ahh just put 27 seconds up there."

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.

Chuck,
Have you seen the highlights from the end of the Kings/Grizzlies game on March 8? Memphis got hosed by a bad timing rule.

I was impressed with the official taking the time to explain the situation to coach Mike Fratello BEFORE they left the court. He still felt that they got screwed, but he didn't scream and act like a moron because he got the explanation that the officials were powerless to fix the situation.

Perhaps if you had done the same at the end of your game the ugliness with the coach could have been prevented.

I might also have instructed the PA announcer to announce something like "By rule the officials cannot put less than 1 second back on the clock and the game is over," as we left the court so that the fans would calm down a bit.

PS Way to be a MAN and do it right, partner! Sometimes you take more grief for being right than for taking the easy way.

Chuck,
I just remembered a line from the case book that might have helped you.

You wrote: "When the whistle blows, I look at the clock and see 0.6 seconds. The clock then continues to 0.0 and the horn sounds."

Oh, now that I look it up, it is actually in the same paragraph that you quoted earlier.

I'm thinking of "One second or the "reaction" time is interpreted to have elapsed from the time the signal was made until the official glanced at the clock." (5.10.1 Sit B Comment on page 41.)

This would be your only justification for putting back .6 seconds, if you were so inclined.

Oh, bullsh1t. Read the coach's comments again. Nobody should be talked to in that fashion.

Agree with Rich completely.

The coach never got screwed by a bad rule. The coach never got screwed by <b>anybody</b>. The bottom line is that the correct call was made. The only people that might have gotten screwed if Chuck put the 0.6 seconds back on the clock woulda been the other team.

There is no excuse at all for that coach's behaviour. Cutting the coach some slack won't help the next crew that gets him, if he knows he's only gonna get a slap on the wrist.

This is why it's a stupid rule: if more than 1 second comes off erroneously then we get to set the clock back to the *proper* time. IOO if the clock operator is good enough to stop it under 1 second we can't do anything about it. If he's sleeping and doesn't stop it in under a second we can fix it completely. But in no event are we permitted to guess at what the clock should be. We can only act on definite knowledge, which Chuck had in this case.

And btw, there are lots of ncaa games played without a monitor at tableside.

I don't really think this is the right thing to do but I would probably make a copy of the rule book page with the rule highlighted and mail it to him. No comments and no return address. Let him stew on it more once he knows you applied the rules correctly.

Look at 5.10.1 D, which makes the original call correct, by rule. It's the case where the referee SEES 5 seconds left, but timer lets clock run to 4 seconds. Ruling: No obvious timing mistake.

I don't think there is a case for putting 0.6 back on the clock.

If you want to put the SEEN time back on the clock, I guess you hope the timer really screws up, and let's it go more than 1 second.

Frank,

Check out the ruling and comment on 5.10.1.b.

Mulk

Curious
 

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.

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).

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.

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.

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?

Disagree...A Little...
 

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]

Joe, the rules <b>aren't</b> flexible. There <b>aren't</b> 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.

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

Ok...But....
 

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

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...

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

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

[/B][/QUOTE]Joe, the rules <b>aren't</b> flexible. There <b>aren't</b> 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

Joe, the rules <b>aren't</b> flexible. There <b>aren't</b> 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 <b>was</b> 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?

Ahhh, Ronny, now I understand what you are saying. However, look at 5.10.1 D. It describes where official blows whistle, sees 5 on clock, then sees clock go down to 4. According to the case book, the referee is NOT entitled to put 5 seconds back on the clock, because the timer is allowed 1 second to react. The screwy part is, if the timer lets the clock run further, down to 3..2...1....0 THEN the referee can put 5 back up. So, if your timer is gonna screw up, make sure he screws up royally.

JR,

Got it, believe it or not, that is what I have been trying to say all along. So, I'm not misreading it.

thanks

Mulk

Frank,

I understand what you are saying, as well. Seeing WHILE blowing (5.10.1.D) is different than blowing THEN seeing (5.10.1.B).

Also, I "understand" about putting all the time back on if the clock runs out verses putting all but 1 second back if the timer gets the clock stopped before it runs out. "Understand" is not the right word but I do know it is the correct ruling.

Mulk

Bob, while the rule may be the same, does the NCAA use the interpretation that the official is not permitted to put back time if it's less than one second? I can't find that anywhere.

You're saying that if we had a travel with 0.6 and the clock ran out, we'd end the game in NCAA? Even with definite knowledge? Even with a monitor to check?

AR 28 under 2-12-10

edit: oops, AR 28 was 2004 book. AR 30 for the 2005 book

[Edited by Dan_ref on Mar 16th, 2005 at 10:30 PM]

Yes. It was in one of the recent NCAA memos (see the NCAA web site).

How does that fit with AR 30 which specifically says that we can put the time back on if we have definite knowledge of what the time should be?

The AR is the same as the FED rule (if not as clear). If the clock stops within one second, leave it alone. If the clock doesn't stop within one second (cases b and c), put it back to what the official knows.

The AR is the same as the FED rule (if not as clear). If the clock stops within one second, leave it alone. If the clock doesn't stop within one second (cases b and c), put it back to what the official knows.

So did anyone see the game last night (I think it was West Virginia/Creighton) where the clock was at 2.4 when the whistle blew for the time-out, it ran down to 1.9, and the officials conferred and put it back to 2.4? The officials knew what it was supposed to be and reset it to that definite knowledge...

Don't remind me, I had Creighton. How the Creighton player camped under the basket all by himself could not grab that last rebound & put it in to tie the game I will never understand. Damn ball bounced off his hands.... :(

While the officials knew that the clock ran a little bit after the TO, I doubt that they knew exactly what to reset it to. I think that they used the courtside monitor to obtain that information.

Also see my new thread on the apparent travel by Sally before he scored the final basket for WV.

The clock stopped at 2.4

The ball was inbounded and the clock started.

The TO was granted before the ball was inbounded but the timer or one of the officials started the clock.

So, 2.4 was put back up.

As for traveling, it's rampant. They certainly aren't going to make that call on that play.

BTW, anyone notice that the officials are using Precision Time this year. It was not used last year.

Are you sure?

I've seen a bunch of officials with their hand on their hip out of habit, but not a single game where PT was actually used. If so, at what sites have you seen it?

I have not seen the PT device in any game this year either. I have seen a few officials chop the clock from either the T or C when the Lead is administering an endline throw-in in the frontcourt.
This alone tells me that PT is not being used on those particular games.


Perhaps the women's mechanic is filtering into the men's side. I don't think that this is a bad mechanic either. I just hate the whistle prior to the endline throw-in that the women's game uses.

I agree with you about the T chopping time. You can thank the NBA for the whistle before the frontcourt endline throw-in.

The PT was used in the VA state tournament this year. Not sure if it has been used before because this was the first year I was able to attend.

In a couple of the games (there were 6 games), it appeared that the "chopping" official started the clock. Didn't notice it all the time and forgot to ask the officials about it.

Nevada,

What is it that you hate about the FC endline throw-in?

Got a call today from the state office to talk a little about the incident. The person was completely supportive and basically said that if the school doesn't suspend the coach, then the state will.

Talking about it again got me to thinking about how it could have been handled better. Two things are bouncing around my head.

First, I obviously should have brought the coaches together for an explanation before announcing the ruling.

Second, could I have gone to the timer to ask if he had definite knowledge of how much time was on the clock when the whistle blew? Could I have used his information to change the clock if he knew that more than a second ran off?

The throw-in itself is fine. I'm against the extraneous whistle prior to it.

Good stuff.

Chuck,

I think if you have definite knowledge of the timing, then make the call and not solicite the opinion of the minor officials. If you were not sure, then use your P, then the table. Then I'd be upset at myself for not knowing the timing.

A quick explanation though. The coach will likely be more agitated than in the tunnel when you're standing there telling him his season is over. I might even use a line like, "Coach, I wish I could help you, but the rule doesn't permit me to extend the game."

NFHS case book play 5.10.1SitE-- <i>"The <b>timer</b> and scorer and the other official(s) can be used by the referee to <b>gain</b> definite information"</i>.

It sure is incredible to see the lack of rules knowledge on this forum.

Case in point-- YOU!

Read casebook play 5.10.1SitBComment and casebook play 5.10.1SitD(a)&(b). You might learn something about lag time allowed-- and the rules.

lag time
 

Straight from page 41 in the comment: Lag time is defined as the time it takes for the official to look at the clock after he has blown the whistle. In the described action, the official saw the actual time on the clock. Lag time does not apply.
Pg. 45 Rule Book: Section 10 Art. 1 "The referee may correct an obvious mistake by the timer to start or stop the clock properly when he/she has definite information relative to the time involved." Sounded to me like he had definite information.

Read case book play 5.10.1SitD(b). You can only put time back up if the timer's lag time stopping the clock is more than 1 second. That's stated in the COMMENT of the other case play too.

You really don't know or understand the rules, do you?

Re: lag time
 

Surfer,

Read this entire thread and you will see how your opinion fits in with Chuck's call. It is not that it is so much wrong as it just does not apply to Chuck's call. It was determined that Chuck was looking at the clock AS the ball went through. Therefore, no error occurred by the clock person. Game over.

Mulk

Reread his description
 

If there was any lag time, it occurred between the time the coach called timeout and the official looked at the clock. He did not say he looked at the clock on the bucket. He said he looked at it after the whistle sounded. Hence, there would have been more than a second on the clock when the whistle blew. Therefore, you can put the time back up.
Follow-up question: If there is .7 left on the clock and red inbounds the ball to teammate who takes 2 dribbles and releases the ball before the horn, will you allow the goal? Gotta give the timer lag time from the time they see you chop the clock until there finger can hit the button, right? According to the logic heard here, count it!!

Re: Reread his description
 

Uhmmmm....I'm quite sure the level of basketball officiating in SoCal is much higher than what you're showing us here.

You're kidding, right?

C'mon, tell us you're kidding. Please?

The above has got absolutely nuthin' to do with the play we were discussing. You can bullsh*t and what-if from here to next year, but the fact still remains that you were completely wrong! If there was 0.6 seconds on the clock when the official blew the whistle and looked at it, and the clock then ran out, you CANNOT put that 0.6 seconds back on the clock. The rules won't let you. That's exactly what case book play 5.10.1SitD(b) states!!!

I agree with your statement that there is a lack of rules knowledge on this forum. Unfortunately, that applies mainly to your posts.

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Apr 1st, 2005 at 01:02 PM]

Re: Reread his description
 

SoCal, you know maybe you should go re read the case book and such before you come in here flapping your jaws. "Lag" time only applies to stopping the clock, not starting it. This would be because as the ball is being inbounded it is possible to anticipate the time when the ball will be touched...In the stopping the clock, it happens then a reaction happens....So no, we won't "count it" assuming there is a 10 second count going, which there should be, but if not, then yeah, it could be counted....coming in here with 8 posts and flaming veteren guys is not the best way to enamour yourself to the rest of the board...just a little piece of advice, do with it what you wish :D

cmatthews
 

Just stirring up the pot a bit. If I post boring stuff, then no one would respond. I enjoy playing devil's advocate as it spurs debate. It's fun fun. I didn't know it was our job to ingratiate ourselves to the board. My bad. I'll try to do better. :)

That's crap too. You weren't trying to stir anything up. You were trying to show off your extensive rules knowledge to all the dummies on this forum who "have a lack of rules knowledge". Unfortunately, all you showed us is that you don't know whatinthehell you're talking about.

Huh?
 

Do you really think I care what the people here think of my knowledge? I don't even know any of your real names or your level of expertise. Sounds like people think extremely highly of themselves. I admire that level of self-respect. I just enjoy the banter back and forth.

Re: Huh?
 

Ya know what this board needs?

It needs a killfile.

Seriously...
 

I'm wondering why isn't lag time anywhere in the rule book and only in the case book?

Please don't take the other stuff so seriously. I really do enjoy spurring debate as I do with the students in my classroom. It makes us really think about situations and allows me to get clarifications for myself as well as those who are afraid to ask.

I'm wondering why <b>you</b> don't know the rules but you can still make statements like-- <b>QUOTE</b> <i>"It's incredible to see the lack of rules knowledge in this forum"</i> <b>UNQUOTE</b>.

When you've been here for a while, you may just find out that there's a whole buncha very, very knowledgeable officials posting here. I'm still learning from them. That's one of the reasons why I come here.

I thought you come here because you know how much it annoys the rest of us.

I thought you come here because you know how much it annoys the rest of us. [/B][/QUOTE]That too.

Re: cmatthews
 

There's a word for that: troll.

There's phrase for that: former member.

It's a GREAT mechanic. It lets everyone know that the ball is coming in play without having to look at the endline.

The saga continues
 

Just got this in the mail today. It is completely unedited except for removing the name of the tournament assignor.

He signed it and CC'd his AD, his lawyer, and the director of his town's Catholic schools.

I figured I'd shared everything to this point, you might as well know what's happened now.

Re: The saga continues
 

I wonder if he knows that lie detector test are not admissible in court due to their unreliability and the fact that they can be beat.

Anyway, good luck with that Chuck. I hope you get it all sorted out.

Re: The saga continues
 

It sounds like he's thought about it & decided you're not a 2 bit f&cking whore afterall.

That's good to know.

BTW, it's not clear to me what his lawyer will be able to do to help him or hurt you, unless maybe he's about to lose his coaching job over this & he plans on fighting to the death to keep it. If I were you I would send a copy of this to my association & insurance carrier for their records, just in case your name ends up on some civil action.

And then I would forget about it.

Just my $0.02
 

So Coach Jekyll/Hyde can craft a well-written denial letter, but he can't control himself in the heat of battle. Perhaps it's his lawyer who writes such excellent letters. If you take Dan's advice and let it ride, I can foresee two possible outcomes.

First, he's shaken and stirred by what has happened and doesn't let it happen again - that's a good outcome. Or second, your complaint becomes the first (or most recent) of many and can be used to help document a pattern of bad behavior - a regrettable but good outcome.

It's too bad he can't just admit his mistakes, apologize, accept the consequences like the man he pretends to be on paper and move on.

You know Chuck, I'm currently retaking that Critical Thinking and Computer Logic class I bailed on a few months back. After re-reading this guy's letter, I think it would make for an interesting in-class discussion. It's a twisty, knotty mess of rhetoric, logical phalacies, disdain, posturing and thinly veiled threats.

He still doesn't get it.
 

Chuck,
This guy's a loon. Put a copy of the letter in a file and forget about it.

It's amusing that the amount of time that was deserved for those four seniors according to the rules is just what they got: ZERO.

I love the way that the coach cites a previous game in which the officials did not handle the clock correctly and argues that this mistake should therefore have been repeated during the game in question. Right or wrong according to the rules obviously means nothing in his mind. We should just blindly follow the previous mistakes of others. :rolleyes:
Yet another example of officials who do things incorrectly making it harder for those officials who bother to learn the rules and apply them correctly.

PS Coach, the game clock shows tenths of a second, not hundreths. So you should have written .6 not .06 seconds.
Go ask your school's math teacher.

Let's hope he's not the math teacher.

BTW, it's not clear to me what his lawyer will be able to do to help him or hurt you, unless maybe he's about to lose his coaching job over this & he plans on fighting to the death to keep it. If I were you I would send a copy of this to my association & insurance carrier for their records, just in case your name ends up on some civil action.

And then I would forget about it.
[/B][/QUOTE]Amen!

You got the call right, according to the rules. You had the 'nads to report the guy, for which you should be saluted by your fellow officials. One thing fer sure, this clown is gonna hesitate a l'il now the next time he loses his temper with an official.

No need to do anything else, Chuck, but shake your head and just forget about it.

Tell yourself the coach is probably a Yankees' fan, if it'll make you feel a l'il bit better. :D

Chuck - get written, signed statements from anyone who heard the guy's comments in the hall, make copies, send the copies to your assignor, your lawyer, and the guy's AD and Principal...then nail his a$$ to the wall!

Even better, call his lawyer & talk to him about the case for an hour or so.

Your coach buddy will get a nice bill in the mail.

I always knew the short ones were liars . . .

Wow - is this guy kidding? He wants you to take a lie detector test? If there's anyone who should be punished/investigated (other than the coach himself), it's the bozos who (allegedly) screwed up the clock the week before.

I'd keep a copy of this letter, any statements supporting you, etc. And I agree with sending copies in to your assignor, your IAABO board, your lawyer, etc.