3.1 to 2.0?

[sseltser]

The rule allows them to change an obvious timing error, correct?

If there were no timing error the clock would start at the touch and end at the whistle. Why should it be timed to when the ball went OOB?

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by sseltser

The rule allows them to change an obvious timing error, correct?

If there were no timing error the clock would start at the touch and end at the whistle. Why should it be timed to when the ball went OOB?

What whistle?

[sseltser]

I now know that you didn't hear the whistle. THERE WAS A WHISTLE!!!! Why would people be on here posting about a whistle that didn't happen.

Now please go back and try to answer these questions on the premise that there was a whistle blown between when the ball bounced and when it was caught by the person at the table.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by sseltser

I now know that you didn't hear the whistle. THERE WAS A WHISTLE!!!! Why would people be on here posting about a whistle that didn't happen.

Now please go back and try to answer these questions on the premise that there was a whistle blown between when the ball bounced and when it was caught by the person at the table.

The freaking question has been answered fourteen freaking times so far. Go back and read the freaking answers. If you don't want to believe those freakings answers, so be it. Who cares? It's a complete waste of freaking time to give the same freaking answer over and over--again and again.

[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.

[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.

[ATXCoach]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

The freaking question has been answered fourteen freaking times so far. Go back and read the freaking answers. If you don't want to believe those freakings answers, so be it. Who cares? It's a complete waste of freaking time to give the same freaking answer over and over--again and again.

Jurassic, I believe I have read every post. The responses that I recall that mention the whistle in the context of my question seem to say (i am paraphrasing) . . .

The whistle is used to stop the clock, but since the clock never started, the whistle is irrelevant. You can't stop a stopped clock with a whistle.

Is this a fair assesment of the "fourteen freaking times" that you are refering to? If it is, then IMHO I think the NCAA should change the rule and/or procedure.

Let's change what actually happened to this hypothetical situation -
NCAA Tournament, 3.2 seconds to go, A1 inbound pass after a made free throw to A2 is first deflect by B1 off the court near the sideline and bouncing towards B's bench out of bounds. Before the ball makes any contact with any person out of bounds, B2 dives and makes a miraculous save to B3 standing legally in bounds on the court. However, the TRAIL official whistled the ball out of bounds after B1's initial deflection of the ball into the court very near the sideline, and everyone on the court except B2 stopped on the whistle. Further complicating the matter, the offical score keeper failed to start the game clock at the moment of B1's deflection. Even further complicating the matter, upon video review of the two other game officials it is deemed that the ball never actually bounced out of bounds.

So, am I to believe that the reviewing officials will make the call that since the ball was never out of bounds and was legally saved by B2 to B3 inbounds - the game is over since clearly 3.2 seconds elapsed regardless of any whistle that was blown?

Thank you for helping my understand and discuss this unique and interesting situation.

[jkjenning]

Originally Posted by Dan_ref

What whistle?

The whistle that was clearly heard, coupled with the Trail's signal that it was A&M's ball. Given that as a fact, please discuss how changing the time based on ignoring these facts was correct. Why the stonewalling?

[DC_Ref12]

Originally Posted by jkjenning

The whistle that was clearly heard, coupled with the Trail's signal that it was A&M's ball. Given that as a fact, please discuss how changing the time based on ignoring these facts was correct. Why the stonewalling?

The whistle DOESN'T EXIST, within the context of the rules.

Ask yourself this question: within the context of that play, what was the function of the whistle?

Answer: To stop the clock.

Caveat: The clock never started.

Result: The whiste was inadvertent, since if the clock did not START, it cannot STOP (by way of the whistle).

[ATXCoach]

DC,

so in my lengthly hypothetical at the top of page 4 - the reviewing officials will/should rule that the game is over? correct?

Thanks

[DC_Ref12]

message redacted

[ATXCoach]

Originally Posted by DC_Ref12

message redacted

huh?? Are you saying that you are not going to give me your response to my hypothetical?

[Adam]

This was a very simple play that required a very simple timing correction. The fact is, the ball wasn't saved and wouldn't have been reachable had someone tried. I've seen a lot of officials hit the whistle early on these plays. Since the clock didn't start, the officials have the opportunity to fix the clock to what it rightfully should have been had everything happened perfectly. Yes, that means they get to ignore the whistle in this case.

The official ruled an OOB violation, and even though he may have ruled it a bit early, that didn't matter in the end because of the timer's error. In the hypothetical, they would have had to stick with the erroneous violation because you can't correct violation calls by monitor. In that case, they would have had to go with the whistle.

Bottom line, this one wasn't that complicated, so we don't have to make it so.

[jkjenning]

Originally Posted by DC_Ref12

The whistle DOESN'T EXIST, within the context of the rules.

Ask yourself this question: within the context of that play, what was the function of the whistle?

Answer: To stop the clock.

Caveat: The clock never started.

Result: The whiste was inadvertent, since if the clock did not START, it cannot STOP (by way of the whistle).

This logic makes sense - sorry I if I'm slow to grasp that others are saying this has a rules-based foundation. If there is a basis in the rules for ignoring the whistle, then fine. It seems weak, especially if the situation is not dealt with directly in a case play. Are there case plays where the whistle/signal are explicitly taken out of consideration when reviewing the play?

[Jurassic Referee]

NCAA rule 2-5-1(f) says that the proper procedure is to make "A determination, based on the judgment of the official, that a timing mistake has occurred in either stopping or staring the clock".

The referee, Karl Hess, did exactly that. He's quoted in the NY Post this morning as saying "When you look at the monitor, the Memphis kid catches the ball, the ball hits the court and then went out of bounds. I put a stopwatch on it and comes out to 1.1 seconds."

That's exactly what has been said in this thread umpty-ump times to date. It's that simple. The R timed the interval from when the clock should have started, by rule, until the clock should have stopped, also by rule. The clock is supposed to start and the ball becomes live when the ball is legally touched or is touched by a player in-bounds on a throw-in. The clock is supposed to stop when a live ball then touches something out of bounds.

If somebody doesn't want to believe that, so be it.