NCAA lag time rule book vs. case play
 

Can someone explain to me the apparant discrepancy between NCAA rule 2-6-2 and case 2-6-2 A.R. 11. 2-6-2 In short says the referee should correct the clock if they have "definite knowledge that more than one second elapsed" The case right after that in situation B has the referee correcting a clock that went from 5.0 to 4.5 because "more than one second has elapsed"

??? Is the book contradicting itself or am I reading something wrong?

The new rule for 2006 has partially fixed this saying you could correct a clock with tenths of a second if you have definite knowledge, but it doesn't say what to do if a clock does NOT have tenths of a second and has 1 second of lag.

http://www.ncaa.org/champadmin/baske...ing_clinic.pdf

So am I correct in my understanding of the new rule that if a clock goes from 5.0 to 4.0 or even 5.0 to 4.9 the referee can fix it-but if it doesn't have tenths and goes from 5 to 4 you can't fix it?

At the time of printing, it may just have been a typo. But during the season, we got a bulletin telling us that if the clock is showing tenths of a second, then you can correct any timing error, even if it's less than a second.

oc
 

So if there is no tenths of a second you can only correct a lag of 2 or more seconds?

Technically, you can correct any lag that is more than one second. Two ticks does not necessarily equal two full seconds. (For example, if the clock went from 3.1 seconds to 1.9 seconds, you'd have two clicks of the clock, but only 1.2 seconds elapsed.) But I think your point is that you can't fix the clock unless you see it move two clicks, and that is correct. Or at least, it was correct last year. I'm not sure if that will change with this year's rule revisions.