Did I kick this
 

Hey had this today and I think I may have been wrong.
1 second left in the game. team A is leading by 2. Team A is to imbound. As A1 releases the ball B1 stays is his plane does not cross the out of bounds line and bats the ball right back to A1 who is out of bounds whistle out of A1. HERE is the problem. I am trail and watching clock, I hear Whistle then Horn clearly. I am the R and call the U over to talk. I ask was the player over the line. He says no. then we talk about putting time on. He had no idea either so I applied the idea that the game is not over when the clock hits 0 but when the horn sounds. So since we can not put 10ths of seconds on this clock I instruct the clock to put 1 second left on the clock. Now another clicker. I saw 1 on the clock when the whislte blew so I had definate knowledge and when the A coach called timeout and that is how i explained it too im needless to say he was mad. I question myself because it seems like some time had to have run off for this play. Game ended up A winning but did i apply the correct rule.
From my little research here is what I have found, please help me learn tho.
For my choice 5-8-1 Against my choice 5-6 exception 1 ( this was not a violation tho so I do not think this applys)
Thank you and sorry for the long post.

If you saw one second on the clock when the whistle blew; put it back on.

If you saw one second on the clock after hearing the whistle, then 1 second is the correct time to put back due the rule change this season removing lag time.

If you didn't see the clock, then the quarter ends with the violation.

If I'm reading this right, A1 made a legal throw-in. B1 legally touched the throw-in in bounds. B1 then bats the ball and it hits A1 who is still OOB, causing a violation by A1. Iow, B1 should now get the ball for the throw-in because of the violation.

When B1 touched the throw-in inbounds, the clock was supposed to start as per rule 5-9-4. When A1 was subsequently touched OOB by the ball, the clock was supposed to be stopped, as per rule 5-8-1(c). Well......I'd kinda think that starting and then stopping the clock would take a second if the timer has normal reflexes. Iow, there had to be <b>some</b> time used up on this play. And....the clock must have started because the horn went off.

Which means that I'll leave you folks to figger out what to do because I gotta go water the dogs.:D

Thank you, this just summed up my problem. It seemed like some time should have run off. I guess the clock guy messed up, but still i had to go with what I saw on the clock didnt I?

Come on Jurassic, don't bail on us now. You're the rules guy.
"Do you have a rule to support putting that one second back on the clock??":D

I'd say, game over, go home.

I've got 'game over'. Definite knowledge of the time ceased as the ball was touched. But why were you watching the inbounder if you were not administering the throw in?

He wasn't watching the inbounder...

Was not I was watching the clock. I only know the details with the throw in because of the conversation I had with my partner right after the incident. I only saw the clock at 1 when the whistle blew. I also heard the horn right after the whistle tho.

Okay, I am confused. If the inbound was taking place with 1 second left and then you are watching the clock and hear the whistle with 1 second left, and you ask a question about breaking the plane. Was it a spot throw-in with the clock stopped at 1 second? Did you see the play which prompted you to ask the question about breaking the plane?

I know that those quick deflections OOB on a throw-in make it tough to chop time, then whistle to stop the clock. I still have game over if the ball was touched inbounds. Did your partner just explain the whole play to you? It just seemed to me from your whole explanation that you witnessed the play. I apologize if I mis-interpreted.

I guess I don't understand what the clock was like.

Did it have tenths of seconds? If not then if your partner (not you) thinks less than 1 second elapsed from inbounds touch to OOB then put 1 second back up.

If it had tenths of seconds then your partner (not you) needs to know how much time elapsed and subtract that from 1 second.

In either case if it was more than 1 second in your partner's judgement then the game is ovah.

It has to be your partner's decision because you admitted you were looking at the clock and not the play.

You felt there was some time left - but as I read the POI and rules change this year you need DEFINITE knowledge - and that seems related to observing it on the clock.

Game over here.

He has definate knowledge. He looked at the clock when the whistled sounded and it had 1 second on it. That is definate knowledge that the violation occured with 1 second left. Put 1 second back on the clock.

The problem with a clock with no tenths is that there could have been almost 2 seconds on the clock (1-1.9).

What you also dont know was if the timer started the clock started on the touch or not...

Ask the timer (they are an official) at what point they started the clock... You can use that to determine if the clock started late --- If it did not start correctly you have to rectify that as well.

Say what?:confused: 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 <b>zero</b> 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.

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.

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 <b>least</b> 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.

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.....

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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 <b>wrong</b> clock readings back on the board. The rule was written to put <b>correct</b> clock readings back up.

Iow, the <b>exact</b> time observed by the official in this case was the <b>wrong</b> 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.

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. :rolleyes:

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

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.

True, but if the clock is turned off immediately at the whistle on this play, simple reaction time by the timer means that the horn might go off. And, as per the OP, the horn did go off. We also don't have any info at all re: the time lag between the sounding of the whistle and the horn going off. That lag could be anywhere between 0.1 seconds and 1.0 seconds(or more) also. When the timer turned the clock off, there might have actually been only 1/10 of a second left, but the clock would still show 1.0 seconds if the official was looking directly at it. You also can't be sure when there are no tenths on the clock that the original time showing on the clock was actually 1.0 seconds or 1.9 seconds. If it was 1.0 seconds, then re-setting the clock to 1.0 seconds will not account for any of the time used during the throw-in. That was my point.

Imo, the only way that you could possibly have "definite knowledge" to re-set the clock on this play was if the clock was calibrated in tenths of a second and you were sure that the clock was started and stopped by rule.

On most clocks, if the "real time" is 0.1 seconds (1 tenth of a second), then the clock will display 0:00, not 0:01

In addition, if the clock shows 0:01 (as in the OP), the "real time" is between 0:01.0 and 0:01.9 These tenths of seconds are often shown on the console. It can be good practice to ask in a situation like the OP.

FWIW, while I was a the gym yesterday I compared the control panel clock with the scoreboard clock. The control panel was a newer LCD type that displayed and counted down in 1/10 of a second.

The control panel displayed 00:01.5 seconds, the score board displayed 00:01 seconds. When I started the clock the control panel started counting down in 1/10s of a second. I stopped the clock. The control panel showed 00:00.6 as the remaining time, the score board displayed 00:00. So even thought the scoreboard was showing that time had expired, it really had not. I started the clock and watched as the 1/10s counted down and then the horn sounded.

Several of us have been attempting to educate him on this concept for 4 pages...good luck.;)

I agree. However, lacking that "definite information" though, which I don't see in the OP, you can't put 1.0 back on the clock imo.