NFHS game:
Visitor is ahead by 2 with 3.2 seconds remaining. They are shooting two FTs. The home team has one time-out remaining. The home coach informs the Trail (3 man crew) that he is going ask for a time-out when his team gets the ball across half-court. The official tells him, "Okay, coach, I'll look for your request."

Visitor misses BOTH FTs. Home grabs the rebound and throws an outlet pass to a guard near the FT line extended. She proceeds to advance the ball against defensive pressure. She crosses the division line with 0.6 seconds on the clock and the coach immediately asks for the time-out. Since the official was looking for the request, he blows the whistle right away.
Just after the whistle, the player ends her dribble and shoots. While the ball is in the air, the horn sounds!
The ball goes in the basket.


Should tomorrow's headline read, "Coach costs his team the game"?

tough break for the team and the coach!! All we can do is what is asked of us, nothing else could of been done, Will make for a good headline though, and i think you nailed it... :)

Well, if he blew the whistle as you stated, that's the headline ...

That's also why, even though I know the coach wants a request that I have some built in lag time with my whistle as far as coaches asking for timeouts etc.,

I've had several times with similiar plays, coach yelling for a TO and by the time I acknowledge and am able to blow something good happnes -

of course, then I always ask, "coach do you still want your TO?"

And they usually just have a big grin ...

Thansk
David

Hard Sell? Not by you.

Was your Clock- keeper "on the ball" and aware?
Who won?
Did you put .6 back on the clock?
How'd you determine it was that fraction of a second?
What did the coach's say?
Was the Coach visable with his T-O request (for players and fans's)?

Daddy, the rules won't let you put any time back on the clock. That was Nevada's point. Legal lag-time allowed is 1.0 second. Game over. <i>Hasta la vista</i>.

Lag time is dependent on the official seeing the clock as the whistle blew.

If the whistle blows and then the official sees the time, time SHOULD be corrected to the time the official saw, as lag time is interpreted to have occurred during the interval of whistle to look.

Oh? That ain't what case book play 5.10.1SitD(b) says.

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.;)

If this happened 99 more times and you held your whistle even a second, then you'da had a coach to deal with who'd already told you his wishes and you chose to hold your whistle.

JR...I have seen you and blindzebra kind of dance around this subject of timing before on this forum.

I have read JR's cited case plays and have read blindzebra's (5.10.1 SITUATIONB: COMMENT)

If there wasn't a rule on this timing/lag thing...I would just like to think I was using common sense if I put up the time I actually saw (definite knowledge) on the clock before the horn sounds.

I think blindzebra has found a "loophole" in the rules to do just that. In Nevada's scenario, I would feel much better putting the .6 seconds on the clock. That doesn't neccessarily make it right...I would just feel better.

Using JR's cited rules the time would not be put on the clock...and this would be correct.

Using blindzebra's cited "loophole" the time would be put back on the clock.

In Nevada's scenario we have the same thing happening on the court...to the player...to the coach...to the team. But, yet the same scenario on a different night could have different rulings because of when the official did or did not look at the clock.

This seems inconsistent to me...I like the "loophole" in this case...and would probably put the time I saw on the clock, since I saw the clock after I sounded the whistle. ;)

Thoughts?

Sure. There should be a rule change that states, "When the game clock shows tenths of a second and the clock does not stop with the official's whistle, the official is allowed to put the exact time that was showing when s/he first looked at the clock at or after the sounding of the whistle back on the game clock, provided s/he has definite knowledge."

I'm sure that could be worded better. But the point is, when tenths of a second are showing, you put back whatever time you saw, regardless of when you looked at the clock.

But until that rule is changed, game over.

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 sure JR?

I re-read the post.
Whistle blew
Time verified
No foul reported (indicated or described)

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 am with JR on this one. The only time in NFHS you can put time back on the clock is when you have definite knowledge more than one second ran off the clock.

While BZ correctly quotes 5.10.1 Sit B, 5.10.1 Sit D is the specific play described and has a different interpretation. In case B of Sit D, the ref blows the whistle, looks at the clock and it says 5 seconds. The clock operator stops the clock at 4 seconds. The Case book says no timing mistake was made because of the one second lag time. The ref saw 5, but yet it was left at 4. The Fed is telling us that is ok. In the case where there is .6, that is where your definite knowledge begins. If more than a second runs off, then you can correct. Unfortunately, you don't have more than one second. Horn blows, game over. You can't correct.

I believe the case play and interpretation before I believe an ambiguously worded note in a completely different case.

That case play says the official was looking at the clock when they blew the whistle, which is the point of my contention with JR about this.

That info is missing from Nevada's play. If The official sees the clock at the whistle and it goes from .6 to zero, game over. However, if the whistle blows and THEN the official looks, 1 second lag time is not a factor because the interval from whistle to look is interpreted as 1 second lag time, and .6 is put back.

That case play says the official was looking at the clock when they blew the whistle, which is the point of my contention with JR about this.

That info is missing from Nevada's play. If The official sees the clock at the whistle and it goes from .6 to zero, game over. However, if the whistle blows and THEN the official looks, 1 second lag time is not a factor because the interval from whistle to look is interpreted as 1 second lag time, and .6 is put back. [/B][/QUOTE]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- <b>"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"</b>. 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.

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- <b>"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"</b>. 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][/QUOTE]

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.

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]Then how much <b>EXACT</b> time are you gonna put back on the clock? You've just blow the whistle with 0.6 seconds on the clock. You then have to take some time to look at the clock. How much time <b>EXACTLY</b> are you taking to make that look? How much time is showing <b>EXACTLY</b> on the clock </b>after</b> you've made that look?

Don't give me that doo-doo about "spinning" either, BZ. You the one that's trying to say that it takes <b>ZERO</b> time to make a call with 0.6 seconds the clock, <b>then</b> look at the clock and <b>still</b> see 0.6 seconds on the clock.

Then how much <b>EXACT</b> time are you gonna put back on the clock? You've just blow the whistle with 0.6 seconds on the clock. You then have to take some time to look at the clock. How much time <b>EXACTLY</b> are you taking to make that look? How much time is showing <b>EXACTLY</b> on the clock </b>after</b> you've made that look?

Don't give me that doo-doo about "spinning" either, BZ. You the one that's trying to say that it takes <b>ZERO</b> time to make a call with 0.6 seconds the clock, <b>then</b> look at the clock and <b>still</b> see 0.6 seconds on the clock. [/B][/QUOTE]

Once again I'm talking about this rule in general.

You are arguing that it is one second regardless, and it is not.

If the whistle went off with 1.6, 1.0, or .8 on the clock and the official then looked and saw .6 and it ran out, .6 is put back on.

Get it now?

The game could be over or there could be .6 on the clock.

[Edited by blindzebra on Dec 14th, 2005 at 05:36 PM]

<font color = red</b>Once again I'm talking about this rule in general.</font>

You are arguing that it is one second regardless, and it is not.

If the whistle went off with 1.6, 1.0, or .8 on the clock and the official then looked and saw .6 and it ran out, .6 is put back on.

Get it now?

The game could be over or there could be .6 on the clock.

[/B][/QUOTE]Yup, I get it. You're still trying to spin your mistake. Your examples above aren't applicable in any way to this situation.

I'm talking about the rules relating to this play <b>specifically</b>, not generally. In this particular play, the whistle was blown with 0.6 of a second on the clock. The official <b>then</b> looked at the clock. You're trying to say that there's still 0.6 of a second on the clock <b>after</b> the official has taken the time to take that look. Iow, there was <b>NO</b> time at all taken by the official to make that look. That just ain't gonna fly, BZ. You can't look at the speed of light. I'm <b>not</b> arguing that the look is a full one second regardless. I'm arguing that it actually takes <b>some</b> time to take that look, and that you don't know <b>exactly</b> how much time that the look actually took, and if you don't know the <b>exact</b> time that the look took, then you can't put <b>any</b> time back up on the clock.

In the examples you gave above, there was time used by the official to take a look at the clock. In the situation you're arguing about, you're trying to say that there was NO time used. Apples and oranges.

If the official <b>was</b> looking directly at the clock when he blew the whistle with 0.6 of a second showing on the clock, he also can't put any time back on the clock either because of legal allowable lag time.

Either way, the game is over.

Get it now?

Yup, I get it. You're still trying to spin your mistake. Your examples above aren't applicable in any way to this situation.

I'm talking about the rules relating to this play <b>specifically</b>, not generally. In this particular play, the whistle was blown with 0.6 of a second on the clock. The official <b>then</b> looked at the clock. You're trying to say that there's still 0.6 of a second on the clock <b>after</b> the official has taken the time to take that look. Iow, there was <b>NO</b> time at all taken by the official to make that look. That just ain't gonna fly, BZ. You can't look at the speed of light. I'm <b>not</b> arguing that the look is a full one second regardless. I'm arguing that it actually takes <b>some</b> time to take that look, and that you don't know <b>exactly</b> how much time that the look actually took, and if you don't know the <b>exact</b> time that the look took, then you can't put <b>any</b> time back up on the clock.

In the examples you gave above, there was time used by the official to take a look at the clock. In the situation you're arguing about, you're trying to say that there was NO time used. Apples and oranges.

If the official <b>was</b> looking directly at the clock when he blew the whistle with 0.6 of a second showing on the clock, he also can't put any time back on the clock either because of legal allowable lag time.

Either way, the game is over.

Get it now?
[/B][/QUOTE]

The time is whatever you see when you do look after the whistle, and it does not have to be more than a second for time to be put back up.

Even in this play, had the whistle blown at .6 and the official looked at .3 and the time then ran out, .3 should be put back on the clock per the comment for 5.10.1.

We don't have that info from Nevada's description.

I have to disagree, Jurassic.

If the official is not looking at the clock, blows the whistle, and then looks at the clock, by casebook play we are told to assume that the time between whistle and look is 1 second. That invokes the "1 second lag time" requirement of resetting the clock. We then reset the clock to the time that we saw when we looked up.

If the official is looking at the clock, the timer gets 1 second from the time displayed when the whistle blows. If the clock runs for more than 1 second, we reset the clock to the time displayed when the whistle blew.

If there was 0.6 on the clock when the whistle blew, and the official was NOT looking at the clock, we have our 1 second by interpretation. As such, if the official looks up (very quickly) and sees :00.6, he/she has to reset the clock to 0.6.

If the official saw the clock at :00.6 when the whistle blew, game over, no lag time applies.

Is the confusion stemming from the interpretation change a few years back? I know that, in the second situation (ref looking), you would give 1 second of lag time, and then reset the clock to that lag-timed value of time.

Either way, I agree with Chuck's proposal.

3.2 seconds remaining.
Missed Shot Rebounded.
Crosses the division line with 0.6 seconds on the clock Coach asks for the time-out.
Referee blows the whistle
Player ends her dribble and shoots.
While the ball is in the air horn sounds!
The ball goes in the basket.

Following this argument that no time should be placed back ... then why didn't the basket count? Which is the offical stop - the whistle or the clock?

If the player launched the thing before the horn ......

We need a Zapruder Film on this one!

Yup, I get it. You're still trying to spin your mistake. Your examples above aren't applicable in any way to this situation.

I'm talking about the rules relating to this play <b>specifically</b>, not generally. In this particular play, the whistle was blown with 0.6 of a second on the clock. The official <b>then</b> looked at the clock. You're trying to say that there's still 0.6 of a second on the clock <b>after</b> the official has taken the time to take that look. Iow, there was <b>NO</b> time at all taken by the official to make that look. That just ain't gonna fly, BZ. You can't look at the speed of light. I'm <b>not</b> arguing that the look is a full one second regardless. I'm arguing that it actually takes <b>some</b> time to take that look, and that you don't know <b>exactly</b> how much time that the look actually took, and if you don't know the <b>exact</b> time that the look took, then you can't put <b>any</b> time back up on the clock.

In the examples you gave above, there was time used by the official to take a look at the clock. In the situation you're arguing about, you're trying to say that there was NO time used. Apples and oranges.

If the official <b>was</b> looking directly at the clock when he blew the whistle with 0.6 of a second showing on the clock, he also can't put any time back on the clock either because of legal allowable lag time.

Either way, the game is over.

Get it now?
[/B][/QUOTE]

Mistake or not, I'm putting the time back on the clock and sleeping quite soundly that night.

BlindZebra,

Stick to your guns. We had this discussion last year and I took the brunt of people not believing what I said when I wrote exactly as you did.

Bottom line is that the answer given by NF in Case book play 5.10.1Sit D(b) is flat out WRONG. In all situation a-d the correct answer is 5 seconds will remain or odered to be put on the clock by the referee.

Why?

For the very reason you stated. 5.10.1 Sit B Comment clearly states that "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.

This means that the time the official sees when he looks at the clock ALREADY INCLUDES THE LAG TIME. I will not allow for it twice.

Ambiguous? How can that be from the "GODs" from the NF?
How can you trust the answer to 5.10.1SitD(b) to be the absolute gospel truth just because it came from the Gods at NF then you diss the Gods at NF by making the bold statement that their explanation of the criteria the officials MUST USE to determine lag time is an "AMBIGUOUSLY WORDED NOTE"?

I believe the NF makes mistakes in their printed material and will call them on it when I see it. If you don't belive the NF makes mistakes then read 3.4.15 Situation A on page 3 of the 05-06 NF Case Book. The ruling is WRONG. The correct ruling is A1 is a PLAYER and he alone gets the T. his status as a player does not change just because it is halftime.

[Edited by Daryl H. Long on Dec 14th, 2005 at 11:55 PM]

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

Lah me. :rolleyes:

Un-freaking-believable.

I'm not saying that this case play is incorrect, because it falls under the official seeing the clock as the whistle blows.

The thing is, just what percentage of all timing errors actually have an official seeing the exact time as the whistle blows?

I'd wager that the vast majority do not, most have the official looking after the whistle, and therefore lag time occurs with this look and time is corrected to the time the official saw on the clock at that look.

Further this lag time issue, probably gets misinterpreted by officials out there because many read into the rules and think they need to witness more than a second come off the clock before they can fix it.

All this aside does not change the fact that Nevada did not give us this critical piece of the puzzle in his play. 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.

I believe the NF makes mistakes in their printed material and will call them on it when I see it. If you don't belive the NF makes mistakes then read 3.4.15 Situation A on page 3 of the 05-06 NF Case Book. The ruling is WRONG. The correct ruling is A1 is a PLAYER and he alone gets the T. his status as a player does not change just because it is halftime.

[/B][/QUOTE]The ruling is wrong and Daryl H. Long is right? :D

You really ought to read the rule book more often, Daryl.

Rule 3-3-3- "A player becomes <b>bench personnel</b> after his/her substitute becomes a player <b>or after notification of the coach following his/her disqualification</b>".

His status changed from "player" to "bench personnel" as soon as the coach was notified of his disqualification. That's why the head coach get's an indirect "T"- he's responsible for the conduct of all <b>"disqualified teammembers and all other bench personnel"</b> as per the exact wording of rule 10-4. The penalty listed for violations of R10-4 says that the head coach gets an indirect "T" and the offender gets a direct "T".

That statement on p.3 of the case book is consistent with all of the pertinent rules in the rule book.

And whatintheheck does "halftime" have to do with anything? Halftime isn't mentioned in the statement on p.3 of the case book or anywhere in the actual case play.

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Dec 15th, 2005 at 03:45 AM]

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 <b>after</b> the whistle means whatever time was on the clock can be put back on. [/B][/QUOTE]And what was the exact time on the clock then <b>after</b> the official looked if he wasn't looking at the clock when he blew his whistle <b>with</b> 0.6 seconds left? Where can I find that information? Don't you need to have that <b>exact</b> information to put <b>any</b> time at all back on the clock?

There sureasheck can't still be O.6 seconds on the clock <b>after</b> he looks, no matter what. That look has to take some time- and if you don't know exactly how much time that look took, you can't put any "looking" time back on the clock.

"Look took"? :D

Let's just talk reality here.

Clock management is important anytime during the game, not just the last few seconds. Yes, it becomes a lot more intense in the waning seconds of any period. The audible buzzer to end the period affects many aspects of the game of which scoring and timing rank high especially when a whistle also occurs near the end of a period.

In the last seconds of a period I officiate the game. I concentrate totally on the players in my primary coverage area (L, C, T) whether on-ball or off-ball.

I do not look at the clock but I listen for the horn.

Only AFTER I have sounded my whistle will I then glance up at the clock to ascertain time remaining if any.

Officiate.
Whistle.
Look at clock.

At this instance the time I SEE is the time I will put on the clock as the case book says lag time is already accounted for in that instance. If I can look up at clock AFTER sounding my whistle and see time remaining, that time I see is the time the comment says is reasonable for the timer to also stop the clock and still include lag time.

If the horn is sounding and 0:00 is on the clock when I see it then the period is over and my whistle is ignored. If the action on the court was such that it needed me to stay focused on the players and I am unable to see the clock and the horn sounds then the game is over. (unless my partner was awake during the pregame when I discussed have the non-calling official look at clock to help with time management in this very situation).

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.

And what was the exact time on the clock then <b>after</b> the official looked if he wasn't looking at the clock when he blew his whistle <b>with</b> 0.6 seconds left? Where can I find that information? Don't you need to have that <b>exact</b> information to put <b>any</b> time at all back on the clock?

There sureasheck can't still be O.6 seconds on the clock <b>after</b> he looks, no matter what. That look has to take some time- and if you don't know exactly how much time that look took, you can't put any "looking" time back on the clock.

"Look took"? :D [/B][/QUOTE]


It's getting late and I'm tired, so this is my final attempt to knock a hole in that brick wall known as JR.

In Nevada's play we know by description that .6 seconds was on the clock when the whistle occurred, correct?

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?

What we don't know is were the officials in this play looking at the clock during the whistle, if they looked after the whistle, heck they might not have looked at all and Nevada just pulled the .6 out of his rear end, correct?

Now, for the sake of argument, let's say they were not looking at the clock at the whistle, but glanced right after and .3 seconds were on the clock and then it ran off.

Game over or A's ball with .3 on the clock?

It's getting late and I'm tired, so this is my final attempt to knock a hole in that brick wall known as JR.

In Nevada's play we know by description that .6 seconds was on the clock when the whistle occurred, correct?

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?

What we don't know is were the officials in this play looking at the clock during the whistle, if they looked after the whistle, heck they might not have looked at all and Nevada just pulled the .6 out of his rear end, correct?

Now, for the sake of argument, let's say they were not looking at the clock at the whistle, but glanced right after and .3 seconds were on the clock and then it ran off.

Game over or A's ball with .3 on the clock? [/B][/QUOTE]A's ball with .3 on the clock.

But....if you don't have exact knowledge that .3 is the correct time when you looked, or what the exact time showing on the clock is after you look at it as is the case of the play we're discussing, you can't put <b>any</b> time back on the clock.

That's my point- and the rules. You can put .3 seconds back on the clock if you <b>know</b> that .3 seconds was on the clock when you looked at it. If you don't know what the actual time was on the clock though because you didn't see anything before the clock hit 00.0, then you can't put any time back on. The rules sez that. You're trying to justify your original argument by using circumstances that aren't relevant or pertinent.

A's ball with .3 on the clock.

But....if you don't have exact knowledge that .3 is the correct time when you looked, or what the exact time showing on the clock is after you look at it as is the case of the play we're discussing, you can't put <b>any</b> time back on the clock.

That's my point- and the rules. You can put .3 seconds back on the clock if you <b>know</b> that .3 seconds was on the clock when you looked at it. If you don't know what the actual time was on the clock though because you didn't see anything before the clock hit 00.0, then you can't put any time back on. The rules sez that. You're trying to justify your original argument by using circumstances that aren't relevant or pertinent. [/B][/QUOTE]

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.;)

Yup, that's exactly what I've been saying. It's also exactly what BZ has been disagreeing with. If you see some time on the clock after looking, fine, put it back up. On this play however, there was never any mention of the official seeing <b>any</b> time on the clock.

And if you <b>are</b> looking at the clock, the timer is still allowed 1 second lag time, by rule.

Iow, looking or not looking at the clock when you blow the whistle, the end result of the play that we're discussing is the same in that there is no rule extant that will allow you to put any time back on the clock.

The ruling is wrong and DFaryl H. Long is right? :D

You really ought to read the rule book more often, Daryl.

Rule 3-3-3- "A player becomes <b>bench personnel</b> after his/her substitute becomes a player <b>or after notification of the coach following his/her disqualification</b>".

His status changed from "player" to "bench personnel" as soon as the coach was notified of his disqualification. That's why the head coach get's an indirect "T"- he's responsible for the conduct of all <b>"disqualified teammembers and all other bench personnel"</b> as per the exact wording of rule 10-4. The penalty listed for violations of R10-4 says that the head coach gets an indirect "T" and the offender gets a direct "T".

That statement on p.3 of the case book is consistent with all of the pertinent rules in the rule book.

And whatintheheck does "halftime" have to do with anything? Halftime isn't mentioned in the statement on p.3 of the case book or anywhere in the actual case play. [/B][/QUOTE]

Thank you for such an eloquent dissertation on why the NF Ruling is correct on page 3 of case book for 3.14.15 situation B. I agree wholeheartedly. Perhaps it is YOU who needs to read more carefully.

I said 3.4.15 Sit A is incorrect.
I said 3.4.15 Sit A is incorrect.
I said 3.4.15 Sit A is incorrect.

On second thought I will type it here for you.

3.4.15 Situation A: After the horn sound to end the first half, A1 removes his/her jersey near the team bench: Ruling: a technical foul is charged to A1 and an indirect technical foul is charged to the head coach; A1 is considered bench personnel in this situation. (10-3-7)

The NF ruling is WRONG. Even though it is halftime A1 is still a PLAYER. Why? Because his status remains as a player until the criteria you mention above per 3-3-3 are met. He has not been substituted for nor has he been disqualified.

The correct ruling is: A technical foul is charged to A1 only. Since this foul occured after the expiration of playing time for the second quarter, the third quarter will be started with 2 free throws by any player of team B and then Team B will be given the ball out of bounds for a throw in at the division line. Since this is not an AP throw in the arrow will not be changed. (10-3-7h)

BTW: For 3.4.15 Sit B the citation at the end only applies to part (a) of the Sit. The NF has omitted the proper rule citation for part (b)which is 10-4-1h.

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][/QUOTE]Unbelievable.

Complete waste of time.

BlindZebra,

"Now we see the violence inherent in the system" It is probably a futile effort to try to knock a hole in that brick wall called JR.

I am just as much a brick wall as he is and personally I am thankful that JR always uses rules citations to back up any comment he makes on this forum. So do I. So does NevadaRef, and Dan_Ref, and many others too numerous to name.

There are very few areas in which JR or NevadaRef and I disagree on. When we do we trade barbs, insults, etc but the bottom line is I respect them for their dedication to studying the rules, and their desire to teach and help all referees who may read, not just those who post on this forum.

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][/QUOTE]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.

I dont think the Fed has taken into consideration that 70% of the schools we call in show the tenths of a second on the clock. i think once they recognize chucks propsoal can be written in.


personally I blow the whistle. and put back what I saw...

Our own esteemed Brad Batt did this a few weekends ago in a tournament. Brad, care to offer any input?

Daryl,
Please take a look at 10.4.1SitB. It seems that the NFHS says that his status does change during halftime.
There is a sentence in that ruling which reads, "During intermission all team members are bench personnel and are penalized accordingly." To me that means that between quarters, including the halftime interval, the head coach should be assessed an indirect technical foul when any of his team members receive a technical foul.

Now you are free to argue that the ruling in this case book play is also incorrect and for the sake of consistency, I hope that you do.

I too do not feel that every case book ruling is right. Those who write them make mistakes and misinterpret rules that have been around since long before they were on the NFHS committee. Personally, I have argued in another recent thread on this forum that the ruling in 10.3.3SitB is wrong. That's my crusade. :)

Thank you for such an eloquent dissertation on why the NF Ruling is correct on page 3 of case book for 3.14.15 situation B. I agree wholeheartedly. Perhaps it is YOU who needs to read more carefully.

I said 3.4.15 Sit A is incorrect.
I said 3.4.15 Sit A is incorrect.
I said 3.4.15 Sit A is incorrect.

On second thought I will type it here for you.

[/B][/QUOTE]Oh my. I see the problem now. I also admit that I was wrong, withdraw my remarks above and hang my head in abject shame.

Now, having said that, Houston we have a problem. I've never noticed this before; the FED makes COMMENTS every year on page 3 about various case book plays. Personally I usually skim over those maybe once and then forget about them. Well. I'm gonna have to stop doing that. None of the case book plays showing on page 3 actually show up later on in the case book. Not a one of 'em. If you study the body of the case book , you won't find them. The only place that you'll find them is on page 3. I was citing 3.4.15 back to you- which is the <b>only</b> 3.4.15 that is actually inside the case book.

Thank you for bringing that to my attention, Daryl.

3.4.15 Situation A: After the horn sound to end the first half, A1 removes his/her jersey near the team bench: Ruling: a technical foul is charged to A1 and an indirect technical foul is charged to the head coach; A1 is considered bench personnel in this situation. (10-3-7)

The NF ruling is WRONG. Even though it is halftime A1 is still a PLAYER. Why? Because his status remains as a player until the criteria you mention above per 3-3-3 are met. He has not been substituted for nor has he been disqualified.

[/B][/QUOTE]Now that I've gone through the "sackcloth and ashes" routine and admitted that I'm stoopid, lemme try to answer this one:

Whoa. Don't have to. Nevada already has answered it. Case book play 10.4.1SitB sez "During intermission all team members are bench personnel".

Also, as per R5-6-4, all technicals that occur after the ball becomes dead to end a period aren't considered as part of that period. Iow, A1 wouldn't meet the requirements of being a "player" under R4-34-1, but would meet the requirements of R4-34-2.

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.

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 <b>after</b> the whistle means whatever time was on the clock can be put back on. [/QUOTE]

Agreed.

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

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!

Great thread, Nevada. I only have one further request:
http://www.forumspile.com/Stop-Dear_God.jpg
:D

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

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.

If the request to stop is made, then one additional thread is posted, is that considered lag time? [/B][/QUOTE]
http://www.forumspile.com/Stop-Count.jpg
Does that answer your question?

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

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

http://www.allfunpix.com/humor/pics/squirrelreal.jpg

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 <b>or team A's ball with .6 left</b>, 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.

- <font color = red>The whistle sounded at 0.6 seconds.</font>
- 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 <b>exactly</b> know what that "some part of a second" is, so you can't put <b>any</b> 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.

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.;)

Give me a break...:rolleyes:

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.

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.)

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.

News flash: ugly rules make for ugly argument
 

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.