3.1 to 2.0?

[Drizzle]

Right, so really the big decision was whether to go by the whistle or when the ball actually was out of bounds. Obviously the officials decided on the latter, but does anyone know what the rules say should happen when they go to the monitor?

[BoomerSooner]

Originally Posted by Drizzle

Right, so really the big decision was whether to go by the whistle or when the ball actually was out of bounds. Obviously the officials decided on the latter, but does anyone know what the rules say should happen when they go to the monitor?

I'm not sitting here with my rule book, but I know they can use the monitor to correct a timing error. The problem is without the clock running the monitor doesn't help determine what the number should have been (outside of using my stopwatch method from my above post).

[JRutledge]

I had no problem with the correction. I think without any other marker, the officials did the right thing. BTW, it appeared that they officials were using a stop watch to gauge the time. I cannot fault them at all for taking off a second.

Peace

[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.

[Adam]

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.

If I can use my mental 10 second (or 5 second) count as definite knowledge, I would think a stopwatch would count. They use stopwatches, afterall, to time world class sprinters; I think they can consider it definite knowledge for 1.1 seconds.

[NewNCref]

Okay, for all concerned, I'm going to break this down nice and slow.

Here's the sequence of events:

1.) Ball touched inbounds by Memphis player.

2.) Ball hits court.

3.) Official blows whistle (whether for being OOB or just an IW)

4.) Ball bounces up, and lands at the table, definitely OOB

Now, according to NCAA Rule 6-5-1d, the ball became dead when the official blew the whistle. For whatever reason the T blew it, it became dead. Now, the question is to whether or not the OOB call or the IW call could be overturned in this situation.

For the OOB call, it is a judgement call, and NCAA Rule 2-5-3c says that "The officials shall not use a courtside monitor or courtside videotape for judgment calls such as: (c) A violation." So this doesn't work. If it was an OOB call, the ball was dead when the whistle was blown, and then call can't be changed, even though it would have obviously been incorrect.

For the IW call, the ball is simply dead, and there is nothing to correct.

Either way, the ball was dead when the whistle blew, and therefore the time should have been measured from when the ball was touched until when the T blew his whistle.

THIS is not the timing error. There was a timing error on this play, but it is irrespective of when the ball became dead.

[DC_Ref12]

Originally Posted by NewNCref

therefore the time should have been measured from when the ball was touched until when the T blew his whistle.

cite please?

[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

[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).

[jkjenning]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I had no problem with the correction.

Except for the fact that the ball was whistled dead and the T was signaling A&M ball well before the ball actually hit OOBs - how do you ignore the signal and the whistle? I agree that the ball could have stayed in the air a full second.

[BoomerSooner]

jkjenning makes an intersting point in regard to what type of error is this? Is it a timing mistake or an officials mistake in calling the ball OOB immediately. The only way they can use the monitor to correct this is if it is a timing mistake, but the more I replay it mentally, I think this is an official's mistake.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by BoomerSooner

jkjenning makes an intersting point in regard to what type of error is this? Is it a timing mistake or an officials mistake in calling the ball OOB immediately. The only way they can use the monitor to correct this is if it is a timing mistake, but the more I replay it mentally, I think this is an official's mistake.

Howinthehell can it be an official's mistake if the timer never started the clock?

The clock should have started on the legal touching in-bounds by the Memphis player. It didn't. The officials corrected the timer's mistake. Period!