Did I kick this

[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.

[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.

[blindzebra]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

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.

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.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by blindzebra

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.

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 inaccurate 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.

[blindzebra]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

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 inaccurate 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.