1 second left in the game. team A is leading by 2. Team A is to imbound

This is from the original post. Mis-spelling aside, it appears that the clock showed 0:01 and must have been stopped when the inbound play began. He did not glance up according to his post to see the one second at the whistle. He said there was one second left when Team A is inbounding. I still have this as 'game over' as the touch by the other team on the throw-in started the clock.

That is the most ridiculous post I have ever read...let's compare apples to a hot dog to prove a point that is absolutely wrong...brilliant.:rolleyes:

He did say that he saw that there was 1 second left when Team A was inbounding, but you are incorrect when you say that he did not glance up at the whistle. Here is what he said:

Now since 0:01 on the board could mean that the control panel computer could have as much as 0:01.9 seconds that it is counting down from. .99 seconds is more than enough time for the play in the OP to have occurred.

The referee does not know if the timer started the clock correctly, however, he also does not know that he didn't "time in" when B1 touched the ball. The only definite knowledge that the ref. had was that there was on second on the clock when the ball was being inbounded and there was one second on the clock when the whistle blew.

Since there could have been just under two "actual" seconds in the game (the board not displaying tenths, so we don't know for sure), and as described, the play could have taken less than a second, and it is entirely possible that the timer did start the clock properly, and since the ref had "definite knowledge" that the board was displaying 1 second when the whistle went off, I'm having a hard time grasping why the referee shouldn't put the one second back on the clock and give the ball to Team B to inbound.:confused: :confused:

Both situations are caused by a timer failing to start the clock properly. In both cases also, an official wants to put back up an <b>inaccurate</b> time that he happened to see when he blew his whistle. The last one might be an extreme case, but both situations sureasheck are similar.

The ridiculous part is your failure to understand the concept.

And, as I said, I'm repeating myself. Everybody else carry on.

There is absolutely NOTHING in the OP to suggest the clock DID NOT start properly. That is an assumption on your part.

The fact is with a clock that doesn't show tenths, the clock can run without any visual evidence to the fact. So as an official, I'm trusting my fellow officials version of what happened and chalking this up to a bang-bang play that had a timing error caused by human reflexes...not being able to start and stop the clock quick enough...and going with the RULES that an official was viewing the clock at the whistle and saw a second, IOW DEFINITE KNOWLEDGE.

So it would probably be a good thing to stop repeating yourself, since you keep repeating complete BS.:rolleyes:

Get back to me when you can find a rule that will back up your fantasy, BZ. You can't use rule 5-10-1 because you <b>don't</b> have definite knowledge of how much time elapsed from when the clock was supposed to start on the throw-in touch until the ball became dead when the play ended. And if you don't have definite knowledge, you can't adjust anything.

You're trying to say that the throw-in took 0.00 seconds, and you can put the original <b>starting</b> time of 1.0 seconds back on the clock. Somehow, I don't think that I'm gonna buy that one. It's...well.... patently stoopid. :)

So what? I find it impossible to believe that anyone would disagree that we need to consider this question in this play at this point in the game.

If this scenario happened to me the first thing I would ask is are we sure the clock started properly. It's a basic question. With that answered (yes or no) we can figure out if the game is over or some time needs to go back up.

Also, I cannot understand why there's so much certainty that it's impossible for anyone to have knowledge of when the clock started and stopped. If you're the official administering the throw-in (and you know what you're doing) then you start a NEW count when the ball is touched inbounds in front of you. Since (apparently) this clock does not display 10's of seconds you can put 1 second on the clock if the ball was touched OOB before your new count gets to 2.

See? Easy. In this sitch one guy knows when the clock should start, the same guy knows when it should end, and the same guy knows how much time elapsed.

Yup, agree completely. If there was one second on the clock <b>before</b> you started the throw-in, and your NEW count is between 1 and 2 seconds, you can't put <b>any</b> time back on the clock because the game is over.

And....If you <b>don't</b> have a NEW count, you also don't have specific knowledge of how much time actually elapsed. And when you factor in the horn going off too and not knowing the time lapse between whistle--->horn either.......

That's all I've been trying to say basically.

What part of a clock without tenths don't you freaking get?

There was MORE THAN 1 SECOND ON THE STUPID CLOCK WHEN IT SHOWED 1 the throw in was touched the clock started, the whistle blew and the official saw 1 second on the clock and then the clock ran out and the horn went.

Whistle, look, 1 second IS DEFINITE KNOWLEDGE BY THE FREAKING RULE, but I'm done, I know I'm right and I'm tired of trying to explain something so easy to a rock.

One second is only definite knowledge by the freaking rule book when the freaking clock is correct when the official looks at it. Most rocks are smart enough to know that. Most but not all evidently.....:D

There is only one reference to seeing the 1 second on the clock and that was before A1 inbounded. The rationale for putting the 1 second back up appears to stem from the sound of the whistle coming before the sound of the horn. He does not indicate in the original post that he observed 1 second on the clock prior to the throw-in and that he observed that there was one second at the time he heard the whistle. That is where the definite knowledge is entering into the discussion. The only definite knowledge of the one second on the clock is when the throw-in was about to take place.

Read the OP
 

It might help if people (that includes 26 Year Gap) read the original post carefully. "I saw one second on the clock when the whistle blew...." Sounds like definite knowledge to me. I have no problem believing the bang-bang play could take place in less than the one second it takes for the clock to change from :01 to :00.

Yes he did. See my response to your post a few posts ago.

It might help if <b>you</b> read the original post carefully. There was one second on the clock <b>BEFORE</b> the throw-in <b>started</b>, and one second on the clock <b>AFTER</b> the throw-in <b>AND</b> the entire play <b>ended</b>.

That equates to NO time elapsing at all when the clock doesn't show tenths. You also don't know how many tenths of a seconds that the horn went off after the whistle either.

No, it doesn't. If the clock displays tenths of seconds, it's eminently feasible to turn the clock on and then off without the "seconds" part of the display changing. The same is true if the clock doesn't display tenths of seconds.