Well, there are 3 things that are supposed to happen at *exactly* the same time (00:00.0, LED and horn) that in practice do not because of how the electronics work AND on top of that the official is viewing a replay on something that only gives him 30 views per second. Lots of uncertainty.

For some reason they decided during replay first look for the clock, then look for the LED, then listen for the horn.

Ok, all of that makes sense to me. I had it slightly messed up.

For NCAA the period ends with the red LED lights, if they are present and working, or the horn sounding if no lights.
However, when judging whether a try for goal shall count or not using the monitor, the game clock showing zero has #1 priority, then the LED lights, and finally the horn.
Now I also believe that the same would apply to deciding whether or not a foul took place prior to end of a period. Is that true?

First of all, if there is no replay equipment none of what we're discussing applies. These rules only apply when an official is reviewing the play on official replay equipment.

That said, 2-5-2 tells all. To your question:

2-5-2.f. Ascertain whether a foul, at or near the expiration of time that will determine the outcome of the game (win, lose, tie), occurred before the reading of 0.00 on the game clock.

1. When it is determined that the foul occurred before the reading of 0.00 on the game clock, the official is permitted to put the exact time back on the clock as to when that foul was committed.

Note: An on-screen graphic display on the monitor may be used only when the display is synchronized with the official game clock.

A.R. 11. At or near the expiration of time, A1 is fouled in the act of shooting and then after the foul releases the ball for a try for goal. A1’s try is (a) successful (b) unsuccessful.

RULING: When a foul and a try for goal sequentially occur at or near the expiration of time, the official shall use the monitor to determine whether the foul and the try occurred before the reading of 0.00 on the game clock. In (a), when it is determined that the foul occurred before the reading of 0.00 on the game clock but the try was not released before the reading of 0.00, the foul shall be penalized and the goal shall not count. When it can be determined with the use of the monitor, the official shall be permitted to put the exact time on the game clock as to when the foul occurred. When it is determined with the use of the monitor, that both the foul and the try occurred before the reading of 0.00 on the game clock, the foul shall be penalized and the goal shall count. When it can be determined, with the use of the monitor, the official shall be permitted to put the exact time on the game clock as to when the foul occurred. When this determination cannot be made, the official shall be permitted to put the exact time back on the game clock when it can be determined as to when the ball passed through the net. In (b), since the try was unsuccessful, the official shall use the monitor to determine whether the foul occurred before the reading of 0.00 on the game clock. When it is determined that the foul occurred before the reading of 0.00, the foul shall be penalized. When it can be determined, the officials shall be permitted to put back on the game clock the exact time as to when the foul occurred.

Thank you Dan that is very helpful.
From the wording it looks like the game clock showing zero is again controlling in the case of a foul, not the LED lights or the horn.

With the new elimination of lag time, I hope that the NFHS is smart and adopts the same ruling even in the absence of a monitor. Just substitute definite knowledge for the monitor. This way we won't get rulings such as the one from Canada that started another thread.

I've been "grammared'.

I used infer as a synonym for conclude which my dictionary says is correct.

Nevertheless, my implication was based on logical inference.

Hmmm...I still think you're missing something, maybe not.

When the clock says 00:00 and the horn has not sounded the period is not over. In that case the officials do not go to the monitor to determine if the period ended, because it clearly by rule has not.

I actually had this exact example this weekend at a school. They had the old scoreboards that did not show tenths, but they had just added a new controller that did show tenths. The scorekeepper showed us how it worked - when he started it at 8:00, it went down immediately to 7:59. That means the actual time was 7:59.9, 7:59.8, 7:59.7, etc. When it finally showed 0:00, there was a 1 second lag before the horn went off. It must have something to do with how the electronics meshed with the old scoreboards, but it was good to see it in action ahead of time, because that told us the horn sounding signaled the end of the period, not the clock showing 0:00. It was not an issue that game, but was good to know in advance how their system worked.

The other strange thing about that gym was the clock and scoreboards were on the sides of the court, not the ends. That's the first time I'd seen that; it took a little getting used to.

"infer" can be used as a synonym for "conclude" but not when it's the written word that's doing the concluding. "I inferred from the article that the ball was not out of bounds untill after the horn." The article didn't do the inferring, you did. The article implies that the ball was not oob...

The listener or reader infers, the writer or speaker implies, get it?

Got it, Dan. Thanks.

Hypothetical Twist
 

For purposes of this scenario, let's assume that some sort of omniscient Supreme Being (you fill in the name of your preference) is the timer for the game, and so the clock is run absolutely perfectly and lag/reaction time does not exist. Also, this is a televised game and we have a courtside monitor that fulfills all the rule requirements.

Team A is down by one point with a few seconds left in the game. B1 fouls A1 (non-shooting foul) and the clock is stopped at 0:00.0, BUT the horn has not sounded. A is awarded a throw-in.

A1 inbounds to A2, who miraculously taps the ball in for a 3 point basket. The ball clearly left his hand before the horn sounded (let's ignore for the moment the physics governing impulses). The covering official signals good basket, and the R goes to check the monitor. At this point, B's coach points out that, in order to count on review, the ball must have left the hand before 0:00.0 is displayed on the couch. (The video shows that the ball left the hand before both the red light and the horn came on.)

Do you:
a) go with the call on the floor?
b) agree with B's coach - the clock showed :00.0, so no shot?
c) call me a dextering wacko for thinking up this scenario?
d) think the NCAA and/or clock manufacturers should fix this?
e) all of the above?

(FWIW - NBA rules state that "if the ball is dead and the game clock shows :00.0, the period has ended even though the horn may not have sounded." (5.III.b))

Underlined is what should be done.
The blue is the correct call by the NCAA rules.
What is in red is certainly true, but demonstrates your creativity.
The pink is what needs to be done.

PS The couch comes into this play due to all the therapy that you need! :)

Mick.<i></i>

Hey - while I think that all refs should be required to work at least a handful of games on the clock, scorebook and shot clock, doing those things for as long as I have tends to make you go a bit insane.

Now that's a call with which I think we can all agree. :p