The Official Forum

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)
-   Basketball (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/)
-   -   Interesting Timing Error (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/30943-interesting-timing-error.html)

Eastshire Tue Jan 16, 2007 02:46pm

Interesting Timing Error
 
We were given this real-life case play at the area supervisor meeting last night.

1.2 seconds remain in the 4th quarter and the score is tied.

A1 is about to attempt the 2nd of 2 free throws.

The timer starts the clock on the release of the free through and the horn sounds

A) after B1 secures the rebound
B) after A2 secures the rebound
C) after A3 muffs the rebound out of bounds
D) before the ball is touched.

What are your rulings?

blindzebra Tue Jan 16, 2007 02:58pm

A. team B's ball 1.2 seconds back on the clock.

B. team A's ball 1.2 on the clock.

C. team B's ball 1.2 on the clock.

D. go to arrow, 1.2 on the clock.

Nevadaref Tue Jan 16, 2007 03:00pm

So the FT is missed in all cases, then here are my opinions:
A. POI throw-in for Team B with 1.2 on the clock.
B. POI throw-in for Team A with 1.2 on the clock.

In both A and B, if is clear that the rebound did not take the full 1.2 seconds to secure, thus the clock must have started early in an obvious timing error. Since there is no definite knowledge of how much time to remove, the full 1.2 must be put back.

C. The 4th quarter is over and overtime will be played.

This action could well have taken 1.2 seconds. There is no obvious timing error here.

D. The sounding of the quarter ending horn makes the ball dead as soon as the try is missed, despite the fact that it was sounded in error. Since the ball became dead before either team could obtain a rebound, the only choice is to go to the AP arrow and award that team the POI throw-in with 1.2 seconds on the clock.

cmathews Tue Jan 16, 2007 04:08pm

with or without definite knowledge??
 
Without a count and definite knowledge I don't see how any time can be put up in A,B or C. In D go with the arrow and 1.2 seconds. In A,B & C since we don't know how much time elapsed, there is no way to put time back up. We can't go with 1.2 since the clock should have started on the touch of the rebound, and unless you are counting, there is not definite knowledge.

blindzebra Tue Jan 16, 2007 04:46pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmathews
Without a count and definite knowledge I don't see how any time can be put up in A,B or C. In D go with the arrow and 1.2 seconds. In A,B & C since we don't know how much time elapsed, there is no way to put time back up. We can't go with 1.2 since the clock should have started on the touch of the rebound, and unless you are counting, there is not definite knowledge.

You know darn well you have a timing error and the last time you have definite knowledge of is 1.2.

cmathews Tue Jan 16, 2007 05:06pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by blindzebra
You know darn well you have a timing error and the last time you have definite knowledge of is 1.2.

I didn't say there wasn't a timing error. I said you don't have definite knowledge of how much time elapsed between when the ball was touched and when the horn sounded...Without that knowledge you can't put time back on the clock in A, B or C. In D you do know that no time should have run off therefore the 1.2 is definite knowledge, unless you are counting in A, B or C you are just guessing about the time, and we can't guess.....

deecee Tue Jan 16, 2007 05:09pm

but you should know roughly how much time is left -- on a miss the clock doesnt start till it is touched -- since possession is gained -- assumed without bobble or what not -- that the ball becomes dead right away and we go POI with 1.2 on the clock as we have possession

HawkeyeCubP Tue Jan 16, 2007 05:19pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmathews
I didn't say there wasn't a timing error. I said you don't have definite knowledge of how much time elapsed between when the ball was touched and when the horn sounded...Without that knowledge you can't put time back on the clock in A, B or C. In D you do know that no time should have run off therefore the 1.2 is definite knowledge, unless you are counting in A, B or C you are just guessing about the time, and we can't guess.....

I'm replacing "after" with "at" (essentially, "at A1's touch of the rebound," etc.), and going with Nevada's responses.

blindzebra Tue Jan 16, 2007 05:21pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmathews
I didn't say there wasn't a timing error. I said you don't have definite knowledge of how much time elapsed between when the ball was touched and when the horn sounded...Without that knowledge you can't put time back on the clock in A, B or C. In D you do know that no time should have run off therefore the 1.2 is definite knowledge, unless you are counting in A, B or C you are just guessing about the time, and we can't guess.....


So what if we replace 1.2 with 5 seconds and they started it just before the release? You not going to put up time when you know darn well 5 seconds didn't run off? I don't think so.

We have definite knowledge of the time before, we know there was a timing error, so we can go back to the time we know was last right, 1.2.

Camron Rust Tue Jan 16, 2007 09:17pm

In A, B, and C, some time should have passed. The clock currently says 0.0. If you don't know how much extra time elapsed, you can't put anything back. It should either be 0.0 or something between 0.0 and 1.2. It can't be 1.2.

blindzebra Tue Jan 16, 2007 11:15pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Camron Rust
In A, B, and C, some time should have passed. The clock currently says 0.0. If you don't know how much extra time elapsed, you can't put anything back. It should either be 0.0 or something between 0.0 and 1.2. It can't be 1.2.

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.

just another ref Wed Jan 17, 2007 02:44am

Quote:

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.


We all know that 5-10-1 states: The referee may correct an obvious mistake by the timer......only when he/she has definite information relative to the time involved.

I definitely know that there is no way that either team could have wound up with the ball out of bounds with the full 1.2 on the clock. To put 1.2 back on the clock would be to substitute one error for the other.

blindzebra Wed Jan 17, 2007 02:55am

Quote:

Originally Posted by just another ref
We all know that 5-10-1 states: The referee may correct an obvious mistake by the timer......only when he/she has definite information relative to the time involved.

I definitely know that there is no way that either team could have wound up with the ball out of bounds with the full 1.2 on the clock. To put 1.2 back on the clock would be to substitute one error for the other.

Well until the fed adds a 0.3 comes off for a touch under the timing rules, we have to go with 1.2...it's the only fair thing to do IMO.

Nevadaref Wed Jan 17, 2007 04:33am

Quote:

Originally Posted by blindzebra
Well until the fed adds a 0.3 comes off for a touch under the timing rules, we have to go with 1.2...it's the only fair thing to do IMO.

That change has been submitted. We'll just have to continue to hope that it gets adopted.

cmathews Wed Jan 17, 2007 10:14am

Quote:

Originally Posted by blindzebra
Well until the fed adds a 0.3 comes off for a touch under the timing rules, we have to go with 1.2...it's the only fair thing to do IMO.

care to support that by a rule? didn't think so because there is no rules support.

The closest thing in the case book is 5.10.1 situation B. In essence A leads by 1 point with 12 seconds on the clock. They inbound and dribble in the backcourt until the horn sounds. The trail doesn't sound their whistle because they lost the count. The ruling is : the game is over. The clock may not be reset as there are no rule provisions to do this. If the count was not accurate or was not made, it cannont be corrected. There is no provision for the correction of an error made in the officials accuracy in counting seconds.


In the OP since there was no counting at all, there is no provision by rule to reset the clock. We also can't substitute words into the OP as was suggested.

Camron Rust Wed Jan 17, 2007 01:05pm

Quote:

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 Wed Jan 17, 2007 01:23pm

Quote:

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 Wed Jan 17, 2007 01:37pm

it most certainly does cover it
 
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 Wed Jan 17, 2007 02:15pm

Quote:

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 Wed Jan 17, 2007 02:17pm

Quote:

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 Wed Jan 17, 2007 02:41pm

Quote:

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 Wed Jan 17, 2007 02:46pm

Quote:

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 Wed Jan 17, 2007 03:29pm

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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 Wed Jan 17, 2007 05:41pm

Quote:

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 Wed Jan 17, 2007 06:16pm

Quote:

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 Wed Jan 17, 2007 07:01pm

Quote:

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......:D

Camron Rust Wed Jan 17, 2007 08:13pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee
WOW!

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

Yer good......:D

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

Jurassic Referee Wed Jan 17, 2007 08:58pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Camron Rust
Huh ????? You lost me on that one.

Typo revised.

Nevadaref Wed Jan 17, 2007 09:12pm

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.:rolleyes:

Dan_ref Wed Jan 17, 2007 09:38pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nevadaref
So you are going to fabricate a time. Wonderful. That's surely the right thing to do.:rolleyes:

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.

Nevadaref Wed Jan 17, 2007 09:47pm

You KNOW what the clock read on the FT attempt and just prior to the rebound being touched.
You KNOW what the clock shows now.

There is definite knowledge of those two times.

However, for anything in between there is no definite knowledge. To pick one of those times and put that back up is simply fabrication.

Think about it, get someone to explain it to you, if necessary.

Camron Rust Wed Jan 17, 2007 10:21pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nevadaref
You KNOW what the clock read on the FT attempt and just prior to the rebound being touched.
You KNOW what the clock shows now.

There is definite knowledge of those two times.

However, for anything in between there is no definite knowledge. To pick one of those times and put that back up is simply fabrication.

Think about it, get someone to explain it to you, if necessary.

You also know that that some time should have run off the clock since the ball was rebounded before the horn. So, you know that putting the time that was on the clock at the time of the FT is also not the correct time. Putting that time on the clock is a fabrication too since it is not the correct time. Knowing what was on the clock at some time prior to an error is not the same as knowing what time should be on the clock.

Heck, I know that the quarter started with 8:00 on the clock. Since I know that for sure, can I just put 8:00 on the clock anytime there is a timing error where I don't know how much correction needs to be made?

Definite knowledge is not about what used to be on the clock but how much should now be on the clock. This can sometimes be derived by combining how much used to be on the clock with any counts that the officials has but it is not sufficient alone to just put it back to some prior time that was known to be on the clock.

Your choices are to either leave it at 0 or to put it as some time between 0 and the starting time if you can determine how much time should have elapsed. There are no other choices.

Dan_ref Wed Jan 17, 2007 10:41pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nevadaref
There is definite knowledge of those two times.

Sooo...I went to my fed rule book and turned to rule 4, where I hoped to find the definition of definite knowledge...but it's not there (shock and dismay). By what authority is your definition of definite knowledge better than anyone else's?
Quote:

Think about it, get someone to explain it to you, if necessary.
One thing is clear. You are easily trained.

Nevadaref Wed Jan 17, 2007 10:46pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dan_ref
One thing is clear. You are easily trained.

She says that's my best quality.

Dan_ref Wed Jan 17, 2007 10:53pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nevadaref
She says that's my best quality.

I'm sure everyone says it's your best quality.

Nevadaref Wed Jan 17, 2007 10:57pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Camron Rust
You also know that that some time should have run off the clock since the ball was rebounded before the horn. So, you know that putting the time that was on the clock at the time of the FT is also not the correct time. Putting that time on the clock is a fabrication too since it is not the correct time. Knowing what was on the clock at some time prior to an error is not the same as knowing what time should be on the clock.
...
Your choices are to either leave it at 0 or to put it as some time between 0 and the starting time if you can determine how much time should have elapsed. There are no other choices.

Camron,
Your logic is fine. Unfortunately, the game of basketball is not based upon logic. It is based up the written rules. Those rules are not always logical and the timing rules are imprecise.
The timer is supposed to start the clock, when the official chops in time (or is authorized to do so according to the proper rules when the official fails to do this). The official is supposed to chop in time, when the ball is touched by a player on the court. This process is not instantaneous. The clock starts a bit late or stops a bit late frequently during the game. If all of that is summed up, it probably amounts to a good chunk of time.

Anyway, my point is that if a player catches a rebound and the horn sounds at approximately the same time due to it having started prematurely, then the correct time to put on the clock very well could be what was on it when the FT was administered. You cannot be sure that any time should have run off because the official chop and timer's response may not have been that quick.

just another ref Thu Jan 18, 2007 12:25am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nevadaref
The clock starts a bit late or stops a bit late frequently during the game. If all of that is summed up, it probably amounts to a good chunk of time.

Anyway, my point is that if a player catches a rebound and the horn sounds at approximately the same time due to it having started prematurely, then the correct time to put on the clock very well could be what was on it when the FT was administered.


Or you could put all possible times on ping-pong balls and draw one out of a garbage bag.

You've already mentioned 2-3, which certainly is a possibility here, which means you can put any amount of time you want on the clock, but you're kinda reaching when your interpretation of a rule includes the phrase "could very well be." jmo


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:56pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1