A slightly interesting one

[Daryl H. Long]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

I will reply as if I were the calling official. Even though an excess TO by Team W was requested I am bound by rule to honor the request. Knowing time is running out I glance at the clock and see 1.0 seconds. Having definite knowledge of time I will put that time back on the clock. (lag time does not apply in this case)

1. Put 1.0 seconds on the clock.
2. Team L: 2 FT's (any player)
3. Team L throwin at division line opposite table.
4. Let the game play itself out.

[/B]

Daryl, the original post said that there was one second on the clock when the whistle blew. Casebook play 5.10.1COMMENT says "By interpretation, lag or reaction time is limited to one second when the official's signal is heard and/or seen clearly". Casebook play 5.10.1SitD(b) says that you can't put one second back up even if you were looking at the clock when you blew the whistle. Iow, lag time does apply if you are looking at the clock when you blow your whistle.

I can't think of any rules justification that would allow you to put that one second back on the clock in this particular situation. Thoughts? [/B][/QUOTE]

JR,


The case situation I used was 5.10.1 Sit B and Comment.

In the comment, the two sentences following the one you quoted are the key. They read: 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. The additional [Time] which subsequently ran off the clock is considered a timing mistake.

In our case if I sounded my whistle to stop clock, then glance up and see 1.0 second then according to the comment lag time is already accounted for and any time theat susequently runs off the clock is a timing mistake. To correct I will reset the clock to that which I had definite knowledge. Definite knowledge is interpreted to mean what the official SAW. Therefore put 1 saecond on the clock. If I let clock remain at 0:00 it seems I have allowed for lag time twice.

That is why I do not agree with the ruling in Case 5.10.1 Situation D Scenario (b). If the comment is true above then lag time was already accounted for when the official saw 5 on the clock. Why should the timer get ANOTHER 1 second lag time? The ruling for scenario (b) should be included with (c) and (d).

Also, I find it ironic that in all the 5.10.1 case situations the clock is reset to the EXACT time the official saw. The reason why is because lag time has already been accounted for. The ruling for Case play 5.10.1 SITUATION D (b) allows for lag time twice.

[Edited by Daryl H. Long on Mar 17th, 2005 at 10:49 PM]