Sell this one!

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by blindzebra
We also know that by rule lag time is interpreted as the interval between whistle and look at the clock if the official is not looking at the clock at the time of the whistle, correct?

That's one way to interpret the comment.

Another way, is to read it as, "In this situation, we have interpreted ("assumed") that 1 second has elapsed between blowing the whsitle and looking at the clock."

This second interpretation makes the two case plays consistent.

I'm not saying that the second interpetation is correct -- only that the comment can be read that way.

I agree with Chuck -- the rules / cases / comments should be changed to put back whatever you see.

[Nevadaref]

QUOTE]Originally posted by blindzebra

Just because he said .6 was on there at the whistle does not mean that an official was looking at the clock at that whistle. Any look after the whistle means whatever time was on the clock can be put back on. [/QUOTE]

Agreed.

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
And what was the exact time on the clock then after the official looked if he wasn't looking at the clock when he blew his whistle with 0.6 seconds left? Where can I find that information?

Exactly, you can't know unless you are looking!

Originally posted by Daryl H. Long

The only way any official can say with certainty that he blew his whistle with exactly .6 seconds is if he was looking at the clock before/while he was blowing his whistle. If he was looking at the clock how could he have seen any type of foul or violation or request for a time-out? He can't. He becomes derelict by not keeping his eyes on the players during the live ball.

Given this, while I do not intend to put words in JRs mouth, my take on his argument is that if the official says he blew his whistle KNOWING there were .6 seconds remaining then first we question why the officials was looking at the clock, and secondly, reality tells us no matter how fast the timer is at his duty to stop the clock it is not unreasonable for time TO HAVE EXPIRED and therefore the game is over. I can accept that.

My argument is that the time I see after blowing my whistle is not the time that my whistle blew. It is the time that we can reasonably expect to be showing given the timer stopped the clock as soon as he heard the whistle.

Very well said, Daryl, I agree 100%, but still have some nagging problems with the rule.



While I've been away let me first say thanks to all of you for the great discussion. I posted this play hoping to get into the finer details of the NFHS lag time provisions. After working the game in question (Yes, I was the official who blew the whistle.), I firmly believe that the current NFHS timing rules need to be changed.

The rulings in the two case book plays that have been cited are most likely in conflict with one another (see the very end of this post), probably outdated (5.10.1SitD doesn't use a clock which displays tenths in the examples), and, at best, the comment to 5.10.1SitB is vague and unclear as different people have different reaction times.

Must a full second of lag time be allowed for even if the official is very fast and can turn and look at the clock after blowing the whistle in only a half a second? Does the amount of lag time that the timer gets vary with turning speed of each official? If so, the game changes with the reaction time of the officials. Well, these general comments are better left until the end of this post. I will return to them then.

Right now I will clarify some information about this specific play in light of the lively discussion it has generated.

First, I was the Trail official on the court during the FTs. Hence, I was the new Lead official for the final play. I was also the Referee for the contest. It was my responsibility to handle any clock issues and make the final ruling.

Second, I must confess that I changed ONE aspect of the actual play when I posted. The final shot was NOT successful. Thank goodness for that as we may not have made it out of the gym if it had been because I would NOT have counted it. I apologize for this fib, but since it doesn't change the crux of the discussion, which is the timing issue, but merely adds a level of excitement to the whole scenario, I took some liberty. I actually had the thought about what if that shot had gone in while in the lockerroom following the game and posed it to my partners to see their reactions.

Thirdly, for the record, my ruling was that the timer was within her allowable one second of lag time and that the game was over. I gave a brief explanation to the home coach, who was a gentleman about it, but it didn't satisfy him, and we left the gym.

Fourth, I WAS LOOKING AT THE CLOCK WHEN I BLEW THE WHISTLE. I did this purposely, but I don't believe that I will ever do so again.
Since this was a 3-man crew and I knew that the coach was going to request his final time-out when the division line was reached (because he told me so), I did NOT watch much of the play on the court. Instead, I chose to focus on the game clock. I trusted my TWO partners to handle everything while the play was in the backcourt. They are both quality officials and I wasn't going to make a call back there anyway, so why in the heck should I be looking back there?

I simply stood about the FT extended in the frontcourt, next to the coach, and watched the clock to make sure that it started properly on the touching of the missed FT, then tracked the play until the ball neared the division line at which time I returned my eyes to the clock and listened for the coach, who was standing right next to me, to ask for his time-out. Therefore, when he starting yelling time-out, I blew the whistle immediately and definitely know that 0.6 was on the clock. At this point I looked back to the player with the ball. I saw her grab the ball with two hands and throw it towards the basket. Therefore, I am also certain that this attempt came after the whistle.
Then I heard the horn. My thought was, "Ah, no," to myself, of course, because I knew that I was going to have to declare the game over.


All of that being said, I believe that I ruled correctly. I knew BOTH case book plays and the difference between looking while blowing the whistle and blowing followed by turning and looking.
During the final sequence I did what I thought would be best for the game and allow me to make a correct call. That is why I chose to focus on the clock.
However, if I had it to do over again, I would do the opposite. I would watch the play and turn and look. I believe that I can turn and look in less than a half a second. That would have enabled me to put some time back BY RULE and in my opinion that is more fair. As it turned out, I felt honor bound to do my job as an official and follow the rule even though I felt that the home team was getting screwed by that rule and my choice of action. There was no way that I was going to say that I wasn't watching the clock, but had turned and looked and thus invoke the other case play. That would have been dishonest and for me the integrity of the game comes down to the integrity of its officials.

However, it is a fact that that game ended because I chose to watch the clock instead of turn and look.

In a fair world that shouldn't matter.

Really why should it matter if the official is looking directly at the clock and sees time left or if he turns VERY QUICKLY and sees time left? There is still time left.
I certainly could have turned my head and seen 0.4 left, maybe even 0.5 or 0.6 if I am lightning fast. That team could have had a catch and shoot, if I had acted differently.

What if I had never turned back to look at the player with the ball, but simply watched the clock run out? Are we happy with this rule that says that I observed the clock run out AFTER I blew my whistle, but I still can't put any time back? I hated telling that coach that I saw 0.6 on the clock, but couldn't put it back. His team fought back from an 18-1 deficit and deserved better, yet I also had a responsibility to the girls wearing the other color uniforms and had to do what was the right thing for them. Therefore, I went with the book. Today I can look both coaches and my assignor in the eye and tell them that I did my job, and I can support how I ruled with specific wording in the book.

The bottom line is that this is a bad rule and needs to be changed. I will be submitting a rules change form through my state office to the NFHS at the end of the season. I welcome any thoughts and help with the wording.


I'll end this post by sharing that most of our postgame discussion was about the NFHS lag time rule. One of my partners said that he thought you could put back whatever amount of time you saw because you had definite knowledge. I explained to him my understanding of the two different aspects, namely the watching while blowing (SitB Comment) and the looking after hitting the whistle (SitD). We then went to a local sports bar, pulled out the case book, and read the relevant citations in 5.10.

He then asked me a question which I couldn't answer. He said, "I didn't look, but what if I had turned and looked at the clock after I heard your whistle and I saw 0.4 seconds left?"

Now it seems that both case book play rulings have to be dealt with at the same time. Which one takes precedence? Let's say that we have one official watching the clock while blowing the whistle and observes it tick away from 0.6 down to zero. He never takes his eyes off the clock. Yet another official turns and looks after his partner sounds the whistle and he is able to see 0.4 still on the clock before it runs out.
We have a real conflict. Do we have to allow the timer a full second of lag time or should he/she have been able to react as quickly as my partner? What amount of time, if anything, should be put back up?

Lastly, what happens if the official is looking directly at the clock when blowing the whistle and sees 0.6, THEN TURNS AWAY to see the ball or something else, and now turns his head back to the clock again and sees 0.1 remaining? Which case book ruling applies and how much time, if any, can be put back?

What a headache!

[Jurassic Referee]

Great thread, Nevada. I only have one further request:

[M&M Guy]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
Great thread, Nevada. I only have one further request:

If the request to stop is made, then one additional thread is posted, is that considered lag time?

[blindzebra]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

That is just it, in the play in question, we don't know one way or the other if the official had definite knowledge or not, because Nevada left that out.

I've been saying all along, that the play as described could be game over or X amount of time going back on the clock. [/B]

Unbelievable.

Complete waste of time. [/B][/QUOTE]

Here are my 2nd and 3rd posts in this thread, I've been saying all along that this play, depending on when the official looked at the clock, could go under either case play.

#2 COMMENT: 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. The rules do not permit the referee to correct situations resulting in normal reaction time of the timer which results in a “lag” in stopping the clock. By interpretation, “lag or reaction” time is limited to one second when the official's signal is heard and/or seen clearly. 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.

Like I said whistle with look together 1 second may run off. Whistle THEN look, put the time back that was on at the look.

Nevada never stated specifically when the official looked to see .6, so both options may be in play.



#3 Where in the play given were the words,"The official was looking at the clock when they whistled the timeout and the clock read.6?

By rule, if the whistle blew at.7 and the official looked at the clock at .6 and the clock ran out, .6 is put back on the clock.

The interval of whistle to look is judged lag time and it does not matter if it is 1 second or 1 tenth.

As I stated before, Nevada's play can be game over or team A's ball with .6 left, it all depends on when the official saw the clock.

I agree, it's been a complete waste of MY TIME, especially since you agreed to my whistle at .6 look at .3 scenario.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by M&M Guy
[/B]

If the request to stop is made, then one additional thread is posted, is that considered lag time? [/B][/QUOTE]

Does that answer your question?

[ChuckElias]

TWO!! Two balls!!! Ah-hah-hah-hah!!

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by ChuckElias
TWO!! Two balls!!! Ah-hah-hah-hah!!

Oh why not...it's been a while...

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by blindzebra

[/B]

Nevada never stated specifically when the official looked to see .6, so both options may be in play.

As I stated before, Nevada's play can be game over or team A's ball with .6 left, it all depends on when the official saw the clock.

[/B][/QUOTE]EXACTLY!!!

There is NO rule that will allow you to put .6 of a second back on the clock, no matter whether you were looking at the clock or not.

- The whistle sounded at 0.6 seconds.
- If you're looking at the clock when the whistle sounded, then timer lag time of 1 second applies. Clock legally runs out and the game is over.
- if you aren't looking at the clock when the whistle is sounded, then it's physically impossible to then take a look at the clock without actually using some part of a second, unless you're Superman. You don't exactly know what that "some part of a second" is, so you can't put any time back on the clock.

The 0.3 seconds you're trying to interject is a meaningless re-herring that ain't applicable in any way.

Waste of time. If you want to argue further, argue wuth yourself.

[blindzebra]

Originally posted by Daryl H. Long


That is just it, in the play in question, we don't know one way or the other if the official had definite knowledge or not, because Nevada left that out.

I've been saying all along, that the play as described could be game over or X amount of time going back on the clock.

Unbelievable.

Complete waste of time. [/B][/QUOTE]

JR

I agree totally. Why would BlindZebra feel the need argue for hours (right or wrong) to the point of wanting to knock a hole in your brick wall because he thought your answer was wrong, and then make a final post of you could do it either way? Whether we agree or not at the least we should have enough conviction to stick with one answer. Could have saved a lot of writing and reading time if we accept two totally opposite ways to handle one situation and both are correct.
[/B][/QUOTE]

I was saying both were possible, depending on when the official looked, from my second post.

My argument was never I was right and JR was wrong with our ruling, it was that we never had that information from the post, so saying it was definitely one without qualifying it was wrong.

Go back and look.

[RookieDude]

Originally posted by Nevadaref
That would have been dishonest and for me the integrity of the game comes down to the integrity of its officials

Give me a break...

Nevada...you usually seem like a pretty intelligent guy, but to say an official is DISHONEST or lacks INTEGRITY because he would have put the freaking .6 seconds on the clock????

Son...with talk like that...around these parts, you would have been wearing your "local sports bar" refreshment on your head.

[Rich]

Originally posted by RookieDude

Give me a break...

Nevada...you usually seem like a pretty intelligent guy, but to say an official is DISHONEST or lacks INTEGRITY because he would have put the freaking .6 seconds on the clock????

Son...with talk like that...around these parts, you would have been wearing your "local sports bar" refreshment on your head.

Amen, brutha.

[Mark Dexter]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Yes, Daryl, the NFHS Case Book is wrong and Daryl H. Long and BlindZebra are right.

Lah me.

Un-freaking-believable.

I'm on the opposite side from Jurassic on this one, but the case book (by definition) can't be wrong.

Now, I'm not saying this is a well-written, unambiguous case play, but we have to go by what is in the casebook (although our interpretations of the CB can be different in some cases.)

[Mark Dexter]

Originally posted by Nevadaref
There was no way that I was going to say that I wasn't watching the clock, but had turned and looked and thus invoke the other case play. That would have been dishonest and for me the integrity of the game comes down to the integrity of its officials.

I agree with you fully, Nevada.

That said, I'm not going anywhere near the "one ref is watching while the other one turns and looks" question.

[assignmentmaker]

Originally posted by blindzebra

Care to explain how you can do that when there was 0.006 on the clock when the official blew his whistle, as per the very first post on this thread? That info wasn't missing at all.

From the first post- "She crosses the division line with 0.6 seconds on the clock and the coach immediately asks for a time-out. Since the official was looking for the request, he blows the whistle right away". Iow, the whistle was blown with 0.6 seconds on the clock. I don't care if the official was looking at the clock or not when he blew the whistle either with 0.6 seconds left.
1) If the official was looking at the clock, the timer is allowed 1 second lag time as per case book play 5.10.1SitD(b).
2) If the official isn't looking at the clock, then as per your cite-5.10.1SitA-COMMENT- "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." Take 1 second reaction time away from 0.6 of a second on the clock when the whistle blew and what do you have? No time on the clock! That one second "reaction" time to look at the clock means that the clock runs out in this case also.

[/B]

That means one second or whatever the reaction time is, not a literal 1 second, and you know it.

The official needs definite knowledge of 1 second lag time for us to allow a full second.

It still comes down to this:

Official looking at clock at whistle, lag time up to 1 second.

Official not looking, lag time is the interval between whistle and look.

Stop spinning it JR.


[/B][/QUOTE]

Perhaps all errors in stopping the clock (note: starting may not be parallel) can be divided into the two classes BZ has been talking about, based on whether or not the Official is or is not looking at the clock at the moment the whistle sounds?

In cases where the official is NOT looking at the clock when he or she blows the whistle, however long it actually takes to look at and read the clock is to be presumed to have been at least 1-second; thus any 'timer's lag time' has been accounted for by incorporation, and what the official sees is how much time is left. (5.10.1B)

In cases where the official is looking at the clock when he or she blows the whistle (5.10.1D), let's call the time on the clock at the whistle T. If the timer stops the clock at T, fine. If at T minus 1-second, go with that, allowing for 'Timer's Lag Time'. However, if the difference between what the official sees and what ends up on the clock is greater than T minus 1-second, whether or not there was 'timer's lag time' is presumed to be unknowable: put the full T back on the clock.