Halfway there!! Now if the FED would listen. . .

[ChuckElias]

First NCAA bulletin arrived in my email today. Here are the rule interps. . .

Rule 2-5.1g
When a game clock with a 10th-of-a-second display is in use and the official
blows the whistle, signals for the game clock to be stopped, and in his/her
judgment one second or less has elapsed before the official timer stopped the
game clock, the official shall instruct the official timer to put the correct
time on the game clock.

Rule 2-6.2
When a game clock with a 10th-of-a-second display is in use and the official
blows the whistle, signals for the game clock to be stopped, and has definite
knowledge that one second or less has elapsed before the official timer stopped
the game clock, the official shall instruct the official timer to put the
correct time on the game clock.

Now, if only we could get this same ruling from the FED. PLEASE!!!

[M&M Guy]

Aw, Chuck, if the Fed. changes their interps, then what would we ever talk about on this forum?

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by M&M Guy
Aw, Chuck, if the Fed. changes their interps, then what would we ever talk about on this forum?

Donuts? Squirrels? Baseball? Front-end loaders?

[WhistlesAndStripes]

Originally posted by Dan_ref

Donuts? Squirrels? Baseball? Front-end loaders?

But not how to trim a Christmas Tree.

Happy Hannukah.

[M&M Guy]

Originally posted by Dan_ref

Donuts? Squirrels? Baseball? Front-end loaders?

Oooh, goody, a multiple-choice quiz!

Can you e-mail me the answer?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by M&M Guy

Oooh, goody, a multiple-choice quiz!

Can you e-mail me the answer?

LOL.

Nicely done. Very subtle.

Now shut up.

[M&M Guy]

That's me - subtle as a front-end loader.

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by Whistles & Stripes
Happy Hannukah.

What are you trying to do? Get this thread deleted?

[WhistlesAndStripes]

Happy Kwanza to you Chuck.

[Nevadaref]

Chuck,
Why the two different rulings? What is the difference between "in his/her judgment" and "has definite knowledge"?

Is the first one designed to cover situation in which the official didn't actually see the clock, but it is obvious that some time ticked away? Upon what is the official supposed to base his/her judgment in these cases?

It seems like the first ruling is opening the door for corrections when the official doesn't have definite knowledge (saw the clock), but believes that some time came off.

Your thoughts please?

PS In light of my tough situation earlier this week which I posted, I truly appreciate you posting this. I am going to recommend that the NFHS adopt the 2nd ruling with the definite knowledge and scrap the current lag time provisions.

[Mark Dexter]

Originally posted by Nevadaref

It seems like the first ruling is opening the door for corrections when the official doesn't have definite knowledge (saw the clock), but believes that some time came off.

Methinks that's the point.

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by Nevadaref
Chuck,
Why the two different rulings? What is the difference between "in his/her judgment" and "has definite knowledge"?

The difference is to cover both the case when the official is looking at the clock when the whistle blows and also the case when the official is not looking at the clock when the whistle blows.

In the first ruling, the official is allowed to use his/her judgment about whether or not the clock ran for less than a second. If you're not looking at the clock as the whistle blows (as JR has pointed out in the other thread), you can't know definitely how much time ran off. So even if you don't know for sure how much time came off, you can still put back the time you saw. At least, that's what it sounds like to me.

In the second ruling, the official has definite knowledge, which means that s/he was looking at the clock when the whistle sounded.

The two rulings remove the absurd distinction created by the FED's lag time provision. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.