Did I kick this

[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.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by blindzebra

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

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 don't 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 starting 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.

[blindzebra]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

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 don't 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 starting 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.

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.

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by blindzebra

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

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.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Dan_ref

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 before you started the throw-in, and your NEW count is between 1 and 2 seconds, you can't put any time back on the clock because the game is over.

And....If you don't 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.