Clock Start Error-Part II, III, and etc.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by M&M Guy
[/B]

From a practical standpoint, I still think there are only two possibilities. One, have your talk with the timer, put 4.1 back on the clock, and take the ball out on the endline. Or, two, get together with your partner(s) and figure out how much time elapsed from the catch until the horn went off (don't forget the talk with the timer), take off the elapsed time, and put the ball in play where the horn went off. But there is no way I can justify putting the ball in play where the horn went off with the full 4.1 seconds. This may be one of those situations that separates the "Rulebook Ronnies" from the common-sense officials. Maybe there is roundabout justification, but I would rather be remembered for doing it "slightly wrong" and seemingly fair to both teams.

[/B][/QUOTE]Amen. You always have to remember that there are two teams on the court, and it's our job to be equally fair to both of them. Letting a team go 42 feet upcourt without taking any time at all off the clock is blatantly unfair to the defense.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

From a practical standpoint, I still think there are only two possibilities. One, have your talk with the timer, put 4.1 back on the clock, and take the ball out on the endline. Or, two, get together with your partner(s) and figure out how much time elapsed from the catch until the horn went off (don't forget the talk with the timer), take off the elapsed time, and put the ball in play where the horn went off. But there is no way I can justify putting the ball in play where the horn went off with the full 4.1 seconds. This may be one of those situations that separates the "Rulebook Ronnies" from the common-sense officials. Maybe there is roundabout justification, but I would rather be remembered for doing it "slightly wrong" and seemingly fair to both teams.

[/B]

Amen. You always have to remember that there are two teams on the court, and it's our job to be equally fair to both of them. Letting a team go 42 feet upcourt without taking any time at all off the clock is blatantly unfair to the defense. [/B][/QUOTE]



JR:

Please do not talk about being blatantly unfair to the defense when you were willing the give the ball to the defense when your partner screwed up in your thread about blowing the ball dead during a throw-in.

MTD, Sr.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Amen. You always have to remember that there are two teams on the court, and it's our job to be equally fair to both of them. Letting a team go 42 feet upcourt without taking any time at all off the clock is blatantly unfair to the defense. [/B]

JR:

Please do not talk about being blatantly unfair to the defense when you were willing the give the ball to the defense when your partner screwed up in your thread about blowing the ball dead during a throw-in.

MTD, Sr. [/B][/QUOTE]Say what?

L'il reading comprehension problem, Mark? If you go back and re-read that thread, I think that you'd find out exactly what I would do. Btw, what I would do is different than what the rules state should be done in that particular thread. I was arguing the rules standpoint with you, mainly because you were wrong(again).

I certainly do have a problem with anybody that would let a team advance the ball half the length of the court on a throw-in without taking any time off the clock. Imo doing that is blatantly unfair.

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

And the questions to you are still the same:
(1)If you don't know how much time to adjust the clock with, what rule will allow you to adjust the clock with a guess? Iow, what rule are you using to negate the very specific language of R5-10, Camron?
(2)If you can't use R5-10, then what rule are you using to move that throw-in to center if you don't take any time off the clock?

Mark is also saying that you don't take any time off the clock; you just give a new throw-in at center with the same original 4.1 seconds on the clock. Are you coming to his defense on that, Camron, as he so stated?

No, you don't guess. You estimate. You have definite knowledge of when the clock should have started, how much time should have been on it, and when the horn sounded. You know that the period that transpired between first touching and the horn is obviously less than 4.1 seconds.

Given those conditions, your estimate couldn't be any less accurate than the estimate obtained from an official's count. BTW, 5-10 readily acknowledges that an official's count is only one source of "official information." It also does not say you need to have definite knowledge of exactly how much time elapsed, "definite knowledge relative to the time involved" is good enough.

[tmp44]

I definitely see both points of view here, but can someone point to me a rule that would negate what JR is saying at 5-10? Or is the "guesstimate" acceptable under NFHS rules?

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally posted by tmp44
I definitely see both points of view here, but can someone point to me a rule that would negate what JR is saying at 5-10? Or is the "guesstimate" acceptable under NFHS rules?

I do not know of a rule that would negate what JR is saying about 5-10. I also do not know of a rule that supports what JR is saying about 5-10. JR and I disagree on how much latitude 5-10 gives an official to implement a common sense, obviously needed time correction.

Here's what the rule actually says:

SECTION 10 TIMER'S MISTAKES
ART. 1 . . . The referee may correct an obvious mistake by the timer to start or stop the clock properly only when he/she has definite information relative to the time involved.
ART. 2 . . . If the referee determines that the clock was not started or stopped properly, or if the clock did not run, an official's count or other official information can be used to make a correction.

You'll note that an official's count is not the only acknowledged source of official information. It is merely the only one specifically named.

Also note that it says nothing about absolute knowledge of how much time elapsed. For that you'd need a working clock and properly functioning clock operator.

But you do need to have "definite information relative to the time involved." In this case we have definite knowledge of three factors relative to the time involved:

• How much time was on the clock
• When the clock should have started
• When the horn sounded

You'd also have a pretty good idea of how much time transpired between the touch and the horn.

I'm not suggesting that we make a wild guess. I am asserting that given the circumstances it's possible to make a pretty accurate estimate. Another word for estimate is judgement. And we get paid to make judgements.

Your call.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Back In The Saddle

I do not know of a rule that would negate what JR is saying about 5-10. I also do not know of a rule that supports what JR is saying about 5-10. JR and I disagree on how much latitude 5-10 gives an official to implement a common sense, obviously needed time correction.

Here's what the rule actually says:

SECTION 10 TIMER'S MISTAKES
ART. 1 . . . The referee may correct an obvious mistake by the timer to start or stop the clock properly only when he/she has definite information relative to the time involved.
ART. 2 . . . If the referee determines that the clock was not started or stopped properly, or if the clock did not run, an official's count or other official information can be used to make a correction.

You'll note that an official's count is not the only acknowledged source of official information. It is merely the only one specifically named.

Also note that it says nothing about absolute knowledge of how much time elapsed. For that you'd need a working clock and properly functioning clock operator.

But you do need to have "definite information relative to the time involved." In this case we have definite knowledge of three factors relative to the time involved:

• How much time was on the clock
• When the clock should have started
• When the horn sounded

You'd also have a pretty good idea of how much time transpired between the touch and the horn.

I'm not suggesting that we make a wild guess. I am asserting that given the circumstances it's possible to make a pretty accurate estimate. Another word for estimate is judgement. And we get paid to make judgements.

Your call.

In the real world, I don't have a problem at all with what you're proposing, BITSy. In the "Land of the Rules" however, it ain't gonna fly though. The "three known factors" that you listed above aren't relative at all. The only really relevant factor is the amount of time that exactly has to be put back on the clock. The rules say that you have to have definite information to make that decision. Iow "a pretty good idea" and "a pretty accurate estimate" just isn't good enough. Ideas and estimates don't comprise definite information. You have to know-say- whether you should take 1.1, 1.2 or 1.3 seconds off the original 4.1 seconds. You can't guess at which one of those to use. Rule 5-10 just won't let you do that. With that small amount of time left(4.1 seconds), even a difference of 0.1 of a second put back on the clock could be the difference as to whether a shot should be counted or not.

I can make the idea of taking some estimated time off the clock and then having a throw-in at center work. Most coaches are reasonable, and I'm sure I could talk them into that. However, if anybody ever protested, I don't think that I could also talk a rules committee hearing that protest into the same thing. When they ask me for justification from a rules' standpoint for what I've done, I really don't know what I can tell them. And if I ever gave a team a repeat throw-in 42 feet up the court without taking any time at all off the clock, as Mark suggested, well.....I wouldn't even wanna start thinking of how to explain that one.

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by tmp44
I definitely see both points of view here, but can someone point to me a rule that would negate what JR is saying at 5-10? Or is the "guesstimate" acceptable under NFHS rules?

No (or maybe yes). The rules are either unclear or unfair (or maybe both) depending on how it's interpreted. We will continue to have (at least) two camps on this issue until the FED (and / or the NCAA) issues a clarification.

What we can try to avoid is stirring the same s***.