3.1 to 2.0?

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Uh oh..where's Chuck?

No cameras this time, ok guys...I can't handle any more of those pictures!!

[Dan_ref]

Hahaha very funny. Stupid monkeys

[socalreff]

Originally Posted by BoomerSooner

The problem that I have with this is that it appears they just made up the 2.0number. I don't see how they came up with definite knowledge that 1.1 seconds came off the clock. Did they play it in real time and use a stop watch? I don't think so, and even if they did, I don't think that is allowed by rule. As the announcers said, "they are just going to have to come up with a number." I think that is exactly what they did.

They used a stopwatch. You can see it in his hand while reviewing.

[socalreff]

Originally Posted by BoomerSooner

I don't have a problem necessarily how much time they took off, I'm no better a judge of that than anyone sitting courtside. I'm not sure how accurate a stopwatch would be though. I just feel that a stopwatch doesn't provide definite knowledge. It is certainly better than just making up a number as the announcers suggested, but in my opinion it doesn't qualify as definite.

Straight from the top in a bulletin:

The second interpretation addresses a rewrite of the ruling in A.R. 120. The ruling presently reads, “…the referee cannot correct the official timer’s mistake unless he or she knows exactly how much playing time elapsed while the game clock was stopped…” The rewrite of the ruling in A.R. 120 further supports the fact that a do-over is not permitted when there has been a timer’s mistake. This ruling was changed to clarify that officials must use all available resources and information when making a decision regarding game and/or shot clock time adjustments. Officials may not always know the exact time, as stated in the original ruling, which shall not prohibit officials from adjusting the clock(s) appropriately.

[BoomerSooner]

Guys, I admit I missed the stopwatch portion of the official's review when I started posting. Furthermore, I hadn't pulled out the books yet, so my opinion when I first started posting was mine and mine alone. After looking at rules/interps and considering the situation, I've backed off of my original position on the stopwatch. I still don't think its as exact as everyone would try to make it out to be, but it does qualify as definite in my opinion now (alot like an official's count, not exact but does qualify as definite).

[JRutledge]

Boomer,

I do not think anyone said that 1.1 was exact. I think many said it was closer to 1.1 than .2 seconds.

Peace

[socalreff]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Boomer,

I do not think anyone said that 1.1 was exact. I think many said it was closer to 1.1 than .2 seconds.

Peace

I timed it 3 times at normal speed an was at 1.0 seconds every time. Of course I had a big screen and they had a 12 inch one. Pretty good job in the circ.

[rulesmaven]

Originally Posted by socalreff

Straight from the top in a bulletin:

The second interpretation addresses a rewrite of the ruling in A.R. 120. The ruling presently reads, “…the referee cannot correct the official timer’s mistake unless he or she knows exactly how much playing time elapsed while the game clock was stopped…” The rewrite of the ruling in A.R. 120 further supports the fact that a do-over is not permitted when there has been a timer’s mistake. This ruling was changed to clarify that officials must use all available resources and information when making a decision regarding game and/or shot clock time adjustments. Officials may not always know the exact time, as stated in the original ruling, which shall not prohibit officials from adjusting the clock(s) appropriately.

I'm really surprised nobody has mentioned this yet, but this exact situation had a very different resolution in the Duke/Clemson game earlier this year. The Duke player inbounded the ball and it was stolen, and shot for a game-tying 3 point goal. The clock, however, did not start to run until well after the steal and the try. The officials restored the clock back to the time that was on the clock prior to the inbounds.

That result was widely defended here, on the ground that although it was clearly apparent a clock error had been made and that some time had expired, it could not be known how much time, so the officials had no choice but to go back to the point at which they knew how much time was on the clock.

So, the question -- how, if at all, are these two plays different. I see a few choices:

a) They are the same, but the above mentioned bulletin came out after the Duke/Clemson game. This, of course, would make complete sense and make this post largely irrelevant.

b) They are not different, and someone must have made a mistake in one of the two cases.

c) They are not different, but because nobody had a stopwatch in the Duke/Clemson game the result is different. (This would be very unsatisfying.)

d) The are different because __________.

If the answer is D, I'm very curious to know how to fill in the blank.

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by rulesmaven

I'm really surprised nobody has mentioned this yet, but this exact situation had a very different resolution in the Duke/Clemson game earlier this year. The Duke player inbounded the ball and it was stolen, and shot for a game-tying 3 point goal. The clock, however, did not start to run until well after the steal and the try. The officials restored the clock back to the time that was on the clock prior to the inbounds.

That result was widely defended here, on the ground that although it was clearly apparent a clock error had been made and that some time had expired, it could not be known how much time, so the officials had no choice but to go back to the point at which they knew how much time was on the clock.

So, the question -- how, if at all, are these two plays different. I see a few choices:

a) They are the same, but the above mentioned bulletin came out after the Duke/Clemson game. This, of course, would make complete sense and make this post largely irrelevant.

b) They are not different, and someone must have made a mistake in one of the two cases.

c) They are not different, but because nobody had a stopwatch in the Duke/Clemson game the result is different. (This would be very unsatisfying.)

d) The are different because __________.

If the answer is D, I'm very curious to know how to fill in the blank.

I was certain the league had admitted the play was handled wrong, so I did a search.

Duke/Clemson timing error

So I pick D, because the ACC said they handled the first play wrong and so far the ncaa hasn't commented on last night's play (implies they got it right).

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by Dan_ref

I was certain the league had admitted the play was handled wrong, so I did a search.

Duke/Clemson timing error

So I pick D, because the ACC said they handled the first play wrong and so far the ncaa hasn't commented on last night's play (implies they got it right).

This is what's so annoying about you. Reliance on facts and logic. What a geek.

[rulesmaven]

Originally Posted by Dan_ref

I was certain the league had admitted the play was handled wrong, so I did a search.

Duke/Clemson timing error

So I pick D, because the ACC said they handled the first play wrong and so far the ncaa hasn't commented on last night's play (implies they got it right).

Actually, it does not look to me as though they said the crew handled the call wrong, but instead that they merely acknowledged that a clock error had been made:

"The league acknowledges that a timing error was made in not starting the game clock at the correct time," said Clougherty, adding the situation was resolved internally but did not elaborate. http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/news/story?id=2744216

Maybe it's semantics. I think we all agree that there was an error made "in not starting the game clock at the correct time." But that strikes me as very different from an admission that the officials erred in how they dealt with the clock error. Again, maybe this is semantics and maybe the league's statements were broad enough to cover both. But actually, just going by Clougherty's quote, it at least implies that the crew handled the situation correctly, at least to th extent it quietly suggests that the error could not have been fixed.

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by rulesmaven

Maybe it's semantics. I think we all agree that there was an error made "in not starting the game clock at the correct time." But that strikes me as very different from an admission that the officials erred in how they dealt with the clock error. Again, maybe this is semantics and maybe the league's statements were broad enough to cover both. But actually, just going by Clougherty's quote, it at least implies that the crew handled the situation correctly, at least to th extent it quietly suggests that the error could not have been fixed.

As has been posted in this thread & elsewhere a number of times - by bulletin the ncaa expects their officials to fix the clock, period. Even if definitive knowledge is not available. Fix. The. Clock. And no do-overs.

The duke/clemson crew got it wrong (not a negative comment btw, I've gotten more wrong in 1 week than these 3 guys get wrong in 1 season) and the ACC commented publicly on that fact.

[BoomerSooner]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Boomer,

I do not think anyone said that 1.1 was exact. I think many said it was closer to 1.1 than .2 seconds.

Peace

I understand that, and the inexactness of the situation is why I originally had a problem with the stopwatch. After much thought and analysis, I came to the conclusion that definite knowledge need not be exact. I feel better about the stopwatch and for that matter using my count as definite knowledge.

[JRutledge]

Unless you have a rule in place to use some other device, a stop watch and a visual official's count are just going to have to do.

Peace

[Mark Dexter]

Originally Posted by sseltser

JR,
Let's say the official timer doesn't make an error.

He starts the clock when it is touched by the Memphis player.

He stops the clock when the whistle was blown (which happened before the OOB touch)

The officials can correct the timing mistake.

The manual timing can't go past the whistle because that would be the stopping point if there weren't an error.

I'm basically trying to figure out how the error correcting would be different than if there were no error.


Also, It is possible that the officials timed up to the point of the whistle. That could've been 1.1 secs. However, the rules don't support timing all the way to the touch out of bounds.

The rules don't say that a TIMER'S error can be corrected. They say that a TIMING error can be corrected.

I think we can all agree that the clock should run until the ball touches something OOB. Therefore, when the clock doesn't run until it touches something OOB, it is a TIMING error and can be corrected using the monitor.