Interesting Timing Error

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by blindzebra

Care to support that by a rule?

Like I said, replace the 1.2 with 5 seconds and for whatever reason, there was never a count, you going to allow a team to lose a game because of a known timing error? I doubt it.

I don't like it, but it is the rule.

Unless you have definite knowledge of how much time should be put back, you can't put any back. And 1.2 is not the correct amount to put back becasue the clock should have started when the ball was rebounded.

Perhaps the time should be 0.8 or 0.9, but not 1.2. But, since you don't know, you can't put any back.

To put 1.2 back gives the rebounding team more time than they deserve. They would now get to advance the ball down the court with a throwin pass such that the clock would only start on the catch...possibly in a shooting position. If the clock had been properly started, the team would have been forced to make that pass with the clock running (or call a timeout if they had any left).

To put 1.2 back would allow a team an undeserved chance to win the game due to a timing error.

[blindzebra]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I don't like it, but it is the rule.

Unless you have definite knowledge of how much time should be put back, you can't put any back. And 1.2 is not the correct amount to put back becasue the clock should have started when the ball was rebounded.

Perhaps the time should be 0.8 or 0.9, but not 1.2. But, since you don't know, you can't put any back.

To put 1.2 back gives the rebounding team more time than they deserve. They would now get to advance the ball down the court with a throwin pass such that the clock would only start on the catch...possibly in a shooting position. If the clock had been properly started, the team would have been forced to make that pass with the clock running (or call a timeout if they had any left).

To put 1.2 back would allow a team an undeserved chance to win the game due to a timing error.

Actually it's not the rule.

The rule has two parts...one, definite knowledge and two, counts MAY be used to aquire it.

We have definite knowledge of the time, 1.2, there just is not any rule support either way, because it does not specifically cover this situation.

[cmathews]

We have definite knowledge of how much time should have been on the clock when anyone touched it...1.2 seconds. A count may be used to determine time used. Did we have a count, not according to the original post. No count, no definite knowledge of time remaining, no way to put time back on the clock by rule. It sucks, but mistakes happen. We always say officials don't cost teams the game, they most likely missed a free throw, committed turnovers etc etc. This falls in the same category, it happens at a very inopportune time, but did this one mistake cost anyone the game....I doubt it, because right here right now, we do have a missed free throw.....

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by cmathews

We have definite knowledge of how much time should have been on the clock when anyone touched it...1.2 seconds.

Yup, and if you put 1.2 seconds back on the clock, you have to go back to the point where the ball was with 1.2 seconds on the clock. And that's the point where the FT was about to be shot, not where the missed FT was rebounded.

You can argue it all day long but this particular play isn't definitively covered.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by blindzebra

Actually it's not the rule.

The rule has two parts...one, definite knowledge and two, counts MAY be used to aquire it.

We have definite knowledge of the time, 1.2, there just is not any rule support either way, because it does not specifically cover this situation.

That is NOT definite knowledge of how much time should have elapsed or should be on the clock. That is only knowledge of how much time used to be on the clock. The only time you can put 1.2 on the clock is if the horn sounds before the clock should have even started. That is the only case where the ball became dead at a time where you could know how much time to put back. In these other cases, you don't have any knowledge of how much time should be on the clock other than the fact that it should be more than 0 and less than 1.2.

[blindzebra]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

That is NOT definite knowledge of how much time should have elapsed or should be on the clock. That is only knowledge of how much time used to be on the clock. The only time you can put 1.2 on the clock is if the horn sounds before the clock should have even started. That is the only case where the ball became dead at a time where you could know how much time to put back. In these other cases, you don't have any knowledge of how much time should be on the clock other than the fact that it should be more than 0 and less than 1.2.

I disagree.

You still haven't addressed my alternate version with 5 seconds instead of 1.2...what if the timer started it just before release and all 5 seconds ran off just as the ball is touched?

Even if you started a count in this situation, 1.2, is half an arm flick .4, .5, or .6 seconds? Is that really definite knowledge?

The problem is we need working officials revising the rules and making rule changes.

[cmathews]

Originally Posted by blindzebra

I disagree.

You still haven't addressed my alternate version with 5 seconds instead of 1.2...what if the timer started it just before release and all 5 seconds ran off just as the ball is touched?

Even if you started a count in this situation, 1.2, is half an arm flick .4, .5, or .6 seconds? Is that really definite knowledge?

The problem is we need working officials revising the rules and making rule changes.

By rule, even if 5 seconds runs off there is no provision to put any time back up.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by blindzebra

I disagree.

You still haven't addressed my alternate version with 5 seconds instead of 1.2...what if the timer started it just before release and all 5 seconds ran off just as the ball is touched?

By rule, no, you don't have any authority to put 5 back on the clock if some time should have run off the clock but you don't know how much. You have to know how much time should have been on the clock to add anything back.

Originally Posted by blindzebra

Even if you started a count in this situation, 1.2, is half an arm flick .4, .5, or .6 seconds? Is that really definite knowledge?

The problem is we need working officials revising the rules and making rule changes.

All that said, what am I going to do in a real game if this happens? I'm not putting 1.2 (or 5) back on the clock. And, I'm not leaving it at 0. I'm going to do the right thing and I'm going to have a "count" that lets me do what should be done....put something on the clock that is "right".

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I'm not putting 1.2 (or 5) back on the clock. And, I'm not leaving it at 0. I'm going to do the right thing and I'm going to have a "count" that lets me do what should be done....put something on the clock that is "right".

Camron, are you saying you would have a count going in the 1.2 situation that would tell you anything other than when the time was up?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Camron, are you saying you would have a count going in the 1.2 situation that would tell you anything other than when the time was up?

Yes.

Due to an extensive musical background where you must keep accurate time and also break beats into segments that can be as little as tenths of a second, I have a very good sense of time even down to parts of a second.

I'm going to just "know" how much of a second passed between the catch and the horn.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Yes.

Due to an extensive musical background where you must keep accurate time and also break beats into segments that can be as little as tenths of a second, I have a very good sense of time even down to parts of a second.

I'm going to just "know" how much of a second passed between the catch and the horn.

WOW!

And you managed to type that with a straight face too.

Yer good......

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

WOW!

And you managed to type that with a straight fact too.

Yer good......

Huh ????? You lost me on that one.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Huh ????? You lost me on that one.

Typo revised.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

By rule, no, you don't have any authority to put 5 back on the clock if some time should have run off the clock but you don't know how much. You have to know how much time should have been on the clock to add anything back.

If only a couple of tenths should have run off, I'm putting 5 back up. I have full authority to do that. If not under 5-10, then under 2-3.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

All that said, what am I going to do in a real game if this happens? I'm not putting 1.2 (or 5) back on the clock. And, I'm not leaving it at 0. I'm going to do the right thing and I'm going to have a "count" that lets me do what should be done....put something on the clock that is "right".

So you are going to fabricate a time. Wonderful. That's surely the right thing to do.

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

So you are going to fabricate a time. Wonderful. That's surely the right thing to do.

If you have half a brain and you pay attention you can develop an intuitive feel for time. Especially if you keep a count going. But even if not.

That said...whether you change the clock or not you are "fabricating" something.

"I dunno, leave the clock where it is" is exactly the same as "err....let's put 5.2 seconds back up."

Think about it, I'm sure you can agree. Or get someone to explain it to you.