Did I kick this

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Say what? Where is the "definite knowledge"?

The clock should have started when the ball touched B1 on the court. The clock is now supposed to run until the violation occurs when the ball touches A1 OOB? Are you saying that complete sequence actually took zero time?

This play is a failure of the timer to start the clock properly....maybe. I really can't tell because if the horn sounded, maybe the timer did start the clock OK. Nobody's reaction time, including any timer's, is instantaneous.

Aren't you supposed to have definite knowledge of how much time elapsed before you can put time back on the clock? As in case book play 5.10.2? In that case play, the R had definite knowledge of how much time should have elapsed. That's why he can adjust the clock. In the play being discussed though, I can't see where any official has definite knowledge of how much time actually elapsed between the legal touching on-court by B1(clock should start) and the violation by A1(clock should be stopped). And if you don't have definite knowledge of how much time elapsed, you can't correct anything. And...if the horn went, the period is over.

But there is someone who *might* have all the information. That's the guy who administered the throw-in IF he had a clock in his view while all this happened.

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Say what? Where is the "definite knowledge"?

The clock should have started when the ball touched B1 on the court. The clock is now supposed to run until the violation occurs when the ball touches A1 OOB? Are you saying that complete sequence actually took zero time?

This play is a failure of the timer to start the clock properly....maybe. I really can't tell because if the horn sounded, maybe the timer did start the clock OK. Nobody's reaction time, including any timer's, is instantaneous.

Aren't you supposed to have definite knowledge of how much time elapsed before you can put time back on the clock? As in case book play 5.10.2? In that case play, the R had definite knowledge of how much time should have elapsed. That's why he can adjust the clock. In the play being discussed though, I can't see where any official has definite knowledge of how much time actually elapsed between the legal touching on-court by B1(clock should start) and the violation by A1(clock should be stopped). And if you don't have definite knowledge of how much time elapsed, you can't correct anything. And...if the horn went, the period is over.

You're attacking a different problem. The OP didn't see the touch and has no knowledge whether or not the clock started properly, and therefore has to assume it did.

What the OP did see is that the clock continued to run after the whistle signaling the violation. He has definate knowledge that the clock should have stopped showing 1 second. He has no knowledge regarding the start of the clock. There is only one obvious timing error and that is incorrectly stopping the clock. The clock is reset to show the amount of time remaining when the violation occured.

The issue is not with the time that properly elasped; it is with the time elapsed that shouldn't have.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Dan_ref

But there is someone who *might* have all the information. That's the guy who administered the throw-in IF he had a clock in his view while all this happened.

Yup, but from the original post, the official saw 1 second on the clock before the play started, and he also saw one second on the clock when the whistle blew, followed shortly by the horn. Well, it sounds like the timer mighta been a tad late, but who knows?

If the guy that administered the throw-in kept a count going after the ball was touched in-bounds, then he's got the information to adjust the clock. If he didn't, how can he? The play from "start clock" to "stop clock" sureasheck took at least a part of a second. Without 1/10's on the clock, you don't have an accurate reading to know what really happened. And you can't adjust anything without that information imo.

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

You're attacking a different problem. The OP didn't see the touch and has no knowledge whether or not the clock started properly, and therefore has to assume it did.

No. He (or the R) has to find out if it started properly and if it ended properly and adjust accordingly.

Someone should have been in a position to verify it started properly.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Dan_ref

No. He (or the R) has to find out if it started properly and if it ended properly and adjust accordingly.

Someone should have been in a position to verify it started properly.

Yup, and if someone wasn't.....

[jmaellis]

May I add/ask something?

Did the control panel count down in tenths of a second, even if the scoreboard didn't display tenths of a second? Did the display on the control panel show tenths; I recall being at a gym recently where the control panel's display showed tenths of a second, but the scoreboard didn't.

Regardless, even if the display on the control panel doesn't show tenths of a second, I'd bet that the control panel still counts down in tenths. If the control panel counts down using tenths of a second, but the board doesn't show tenths, than the one second being displayed on the scoreboard could in reality be 1.9 seconds. It seems reasonable that in the scenario described by the OP that the entire play could have happened w/i .9 seconds, therefore when he heard the whistle and saw 1 second on the clock, it could have easily been 1 second left (maybe even more); the timer may have actually started the clock properly, he just didn't stop it properly.

From a newbie standpoint, it seems like the OP did the right thing by putting 1 second on the clock, and since adding the time would be done manually, the internal clock would be 1.0 seconds

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by Dan_ref

No. He (or the R) has to find out if it started properly and if it ended properly and adjust accordingly.

Someone should have been in a position to verify it started properly.

It is not possible to verify that it started correctly on a clock that doesn't display tenths in this situation. A whole 0.9 seconds can elapse without the number on the board changing. If the play took less time than that, a reasonable assumption in this situation, there is no way to verify the clock starting.

Beyond which, we have no authority to deal with a clock not started properly if we do not have definate knowledge of the time that should have elapsed. Short of counting seconds, what are you using to measure the time that should have elapsed? You don't have a count going in this situation - the throw-in count has ended and no backcourt count has begun.

The only definate knowledge in this situation is what was on the clock when the whistle was blown.

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

It is not possible...

I don't know or care what is or isn't possible. I wasn't there. I don't think you were there.

My message is that the guy who was administering the throw-in has, or should have the most if not all the information needed to determine what needs to be done. What's possible to do is based mostly on what he knows.

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by Dan_ref

I don't know or care what is or isn't possible. I wasn't there. I don't think you were there.

My message is that the guy who was administering the throw-in has, or should have the most if not all the information needed to determine what needs to be done. What's possible to do is based mostly on what he knows.

Care to explain how to confirm that a clock which doesn't show tenths has started running when it started at 1 second and less than 1 second has elapsed?

My point is that he cannot know whether or not the clock started until 1 second after the clock should have started. The information is not atainable in this situation so it cannot be an obvious timing error in regards to starting the clock.

[blindzebra]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Say what? Where is the "definite knowledge"?

The clock should have started when the ball touched B1 on the court. The clock is now supposed to run until the violation occurs when the ball touches A1 OOB? Are you saying that complete sequence actually took zero time?

This play is a failure of the timer to start the clock properly....maybe. I really can't tell because if the horn sounded, maybe the timer did start the clock OK. Nobody's reaction time, including any timer's, is instantaneous.

Aren't you supposed to have definite knowledge of how much time elapsed before you can put time back on the clock? As in case book play 5.10.2? In that case play, the R had definite knowledge of how much time should have elapsed. That's why he can adjust the clock. In the play being discussed though, I can't see where any official has definite knowledge of how much time actually elapsed between the legal touching on-court by B1(clock should start) and the violation by A1(clock should be stopped). And if you don't have definite knowledge of how much time elapsed, you can't correct anything. And...if the horn went, the period is over.

The clock didn't show tenths...there very well could have been 1.9 seconds at the start of the throw-in, the clock properly started, and 1.0 when the whistle blew.

You put what the official saw at the whistle, 1 second.

[blindzebra]

Originally Posted by jmaellis

May I add/ask something?

Did the control panel count down in tenths of a second, even if the scoreboard didn't display tenths of a second? Did the display on the control panel show tenths; I recall being at a gym recently where the control panel's display showed tenths of a second, but the scoreboard didn't.

Regardless, even if the display on the control panel doesn't show tenths of a second, I'd bet that the control panel still counts down in tenths. If the control panel counts down using tenths of a second, but the board doesn't show tenths, than the one second being displayed on the scoreboard could in reality be 1.9 seconds. It seems reasonable that in the scenario described by the OP that the entire play could have happened w/i .9 seconds, therefore when he heard the whistle and saw 1 second on the clock, it could have easily been 1 second left (maybe even more); the timer may have actually started the clock properly, he just didn't stop it properly.

From a newbie standpoint, it seems like the OP did the right thing by putting 1 second on the clock, and since adding the time would be done manually, the internal clock would be 1.0 seconds

Newbie 2...old farts 0...you are absolutely correct.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by blindzebra

The clock didn't show tenths...there very well could have been 1.9 seconds at the start of the throw-in, the clock properly started, and 1.0 when the whistle blew.

Yup, which is one of the reasons why you can't put 1 second back on the clock. You do not have exact knowledge of whether you started with 1.9 seconds or 1.0seconds, or any time in between. Another reason is that you still aren't accounting for any of the time used during the throw-in from the clock starting to stopping.

What the official saw at the whistle is an inaccurate reading because of the timer's failure to start the clock when he should have. The intent of the new language was never to put wrong clock readings back on the board. The rule was written to put correct clock readings back up.

Iow, the exact time observed by the official in this case was the wrong time.

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Yup, which is one of the reasons why you can't put 1 second back on the clock. You do not have exact knowledge of whether you started with 1.9 seconds or 1.0seconds, or any time in between. Another reason is that you still aren't accounting for any of the time used during the throw-in from the clock starting to stopping.

What the official saw at the whistle is an inaccurate reading because of the timer's failure to start the clock when he should have. The intent of the new language was never to put wrong clock readings back on the board. The rule was written to put correct clock readings back up.

Iow, the exact time observed by the official in this case was the wrong time.

JR, why are you fussing over when the clock started? There is no indication that the clock was started wrong. Why do you feel the clock was started incorrectly?

By your reasoning you can never correct a clock except in the last second of a period on a clock displaying tenths (even then you have the problem that you don't know if it was 0.99 or 0.90).

There is no information to suggest the clock failed to start properly. The clock did continue to run past the whistle. An official observed the time when the whistle was sounded. That time should be put back on the clock.

[blindzebra]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Yup, which is one of the reasons why you can't put 1 second back on the clock. You do not have exact knowledge of whether you started with 1.9 seconds or 1.0seconds, or any time in between. Another reason is that you still aren't accounting for any of the time used during the throw-in from the clock starting to stopping.

What the official saw at the whistle is an inaccurate reading because of the timer's failure to start the clock when he should have. The intent of the new language was never to put wrong clock readings back on the board. The rule was written to put correct clock readings back up.

Iow, the exact time observed by the official in this case was the wrong time.

100% wrong, zero rule support to back it up...the official saw 1 second after the whistle, that fits definite knowledge under the rules, end of discussion.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by blindzebra

100% wrong, zero rule support to back it up...the official saw 1 second after the whistle, that fits definite knowledge under the rules, end of discussion.

So....if there's a throw-in with 5 seconds on the clock...and a player catches the throw-in and scores......and the other team throws the ball in and goes the length of the court and scores....and a TO is then called, and the official looks at the clock as he calls it and sees 4 seconds on it, the official has to leave the 4 seconds on the clock because that's what he saw when he looked at the clock.

Feel free to do so.

Y'all can keep arguing this one amongst yourseves too. I'm starting to repeat myself.