Duke/Clemson timing error

[JRutledge]

To be fair, I do not even know if the officials knew the clock did not start properly. It was obvious that the clock did not stop properly after Clemson made the game tying 3 point shot. I watched the game live and I think the focus was much more on the clock stopping after the shot. Also to say that Duke got the better of the deal is really not fair either. If the clock started properly that could have hurt Clemson. Remember, there was an errant pass that happen to fall into the Clemson's hand. The Clemson player happened to be in perfect position to shoot a shot. If he was further out from the 3 point line or below the 3 point line, they might not have gotten off a good shot. The glaring timing mistake was after the shot not before. I am not even sure they looked at the clock before hand to be sure it started properly.

Without the timing mistake, Clemson still should not allow a team to go the court length and hit a lay-up. You do not deserve to win in that case.

Peace

[All_Heart]

Are they allowed to have a stop watch at the table for these purposes?

They could have watched the play in real time and started it when the clemson player caught the ball and stopped it when it cleared the net. This seems like a good way to put the correct time on the clock when the clock was not started on time.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by mjbofficial

Clemson got hosed. There was plenty of time for all of the appropriate parties to put a fair amount of time back on, but 4.4 seconds was obviously too much.

How would you have determined the correct amount of time to put on the clock?

As far as why the officials ran 0.6 off the clock, I'm guessing, during the video review, that's the amount of time they saw elapse off the game clock between the time the clock finally started and when the basketball went through the basket. Meaning, the clock was originally at 5.0, it didn't start until the ball was about to go through the hoop, the ball passed through the hoop, the clock read 4.4, then it continued to run down to 1.8 when the mistake was finally noticed. In this case, the only definite knowledge the officials would have had was the 0.6 seconds.

[tmp44]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

As far as why the officials ran 0.6 off the clock, I'm guessing that's the amount of time they saw run off the clock between the time the clock finally started and when the basketball went through the basket. Meaning, the clock was originally at 5.0, it didn't start until the ball was about to go through the hoop, the ball ball passed through the hoop, the clock read 4.4, then it continued to run down to 1.8 when the mistake was finally noticed. In this case, the only definite knowledge the officials would have had was the 0.6 seconds.

That makes sense. Under the definite knowledge rule, there is no way the officials could definitely determine elapsed time while the ball is in the air without some sort of on court count, etc. The only thing they can do is put the time they know back up (or off in this case). If BadNewsRef's interpretation of what happened is correct, then I don't see any fault on the officials' part, however unfortunate that may be for Clemson, in this game.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by All_Heart

Are they allowed to have a stop watch at the table for these purposes?

They could have watched the play in real time and started it when the clemson player caught the ball and stopped it when it cleared the net. This seems like a good way to put the correct time on the clock when the clock was not started on time.

I do not see a stop clock as apart of the rules application. Remember SportsCenter can do that with their graphics on the screen. It is not like the officials get that kind of look. Maybe that might be apart of something in the future, but right now that is not a standardize situation.

Peace

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by All_Heart

Are they allowed to have a stop watch at the table for these purposes?

They could have watched the play in real time and started it when the clemson player caught the ball and stopped it when it cleared the net. This seems like a good way to put the correct time on the clock when the clock was not started on time.

I didn't see the play or any video on it, but I *think* that the officials are allowed to ask the TV folks for timing information (e.g., between the time the ball is touched inbounds and the time the ball leaves the bottom of the net, how many "frames" are used and how much time does that equal).

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by IREFU2

I thought it was the officials (all 3) responsibility to make sure the clock has properly started and when they blow the whistle, it automatically stops.

So you want all three officials watching the ball and starting the clcok?

No, that's not the way it works. The offiical who would normally chop the clock, starts it. Also, the timer should start the clock.

We have about 10 schools who use PT. Most of the time, it works correctly. Sometimes, you can push you finger through the bottom of the box and it still doesn't start.

Bottom line, there was 4.4 seconds on the clock when Duke inbounded the ball. Clemson did nothing to stop an open layup to end the game. So the Tigers and their fans can sit around, whine, moan, b!tch and complain that they were robbed. Or they can admit, "We blew it defensively!"

[Jurassic Referee]

Didn't we just finish (I hope) arguing about a similar play with 1 second on the clock when the play started?

Soooooo.....if the ball was in the cylinder with 5 seconds to go, that was the exact time observed. You now just subtract the time that elapsed from that point until the ball went through the basket. Correct?

Now wasn't that easy?

[tomegun]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Didn't we just finish (I hope) arguing about a similar play with 1 second on the clock when the play started?

Soooooo.....if the ball was in the cylinder with 5 seconds to go, that was the exact time observed. You now just subtract the time that elapsed from that point until the ball went through the basket. Correct?

Now wasn't that easy?

As an official I agree with all these comments. However, as a basketball fan I throw up the BS flag and say Duke sure does have a lot of coincidental things go in their favor.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by tomegun

As an official I agree with all these comments. However, as a basketball fan I throw up the BS flag and say Duke sure does have a lot of coincidental things go in their favor.

Do you think officials cheat for Duke?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by tomegun

As an official I agree with all these comments. However, as a basketball fan I throw up the BS flag and say Duke sure does have a lot of coincidental things go in their favor.

I think you are then drinking the Kool aid. Because there are a lot of times Duke did not benefit from a call in some very big moments. I can think of when Indiana (your home state ) beat Duke and there could have been an argument there was a foul to a "star player" in the last couple of seconds.

Peace

[cmathews]

BBR, It is good to see you in the Dukies corner ....I know it is tough for you, but I agree with everything you have said, and we all know that the officials don't cheat for the Dukies, and to suggest so calls into question any officials integrity...

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by tomegun

As an official I agree with all these comments. However, as a basketball fan I throw up the BS flag and say Duke sure does have a lot of coincidental things go in their favor.

I would never speak ill of Duke. Well, except maybe to say that their coach is a whiny little hemmorhoid. And... the Duke fans are pretty much the same also ......

[GonetoRef]

Did anyone notice one of the officials for this game was Tom Lopes? The same gentleman that was called out in the Georgia/Alabama game last weekend. How much more hot water can he get into???

[grunewar]

Let me look into my crystal ball, the call went in Duke's favor. Was I right?

At Duke? Shocked I am that you would say such a thing!