3.1 to 2.0?
 

Can someone please explain it to me?

From what I saw, the ball was deflected off of the Memphis player, hit the court inbounds, then bounced up. The ball sailed through the air and wasn't out of bounds until it hit someone/something out of bounds a few rows back in the press area.

That said, I did hear a whistle blow before the ball touched anything out of bounds. Also, the angle CBS showed wasn't that great.

The only thing I could see was the ball bounced inbounds first then went out of bounds..

Just because ball breaks plane of out of bounds, it is not OOB until someone who is out of bounds touches it, or it lands on the court out of bounds. Therefore, the clock wouldn't stop till it hits the guy at the scorers table!!

A player can leave the court from being in bounds and save a ball that has crossed the plane.

Another instance of commentators NOT knowing the rules.

Not really but I can give it a shot. In normal time the trail blew his whistle before the ball actually went out of bounds. He blew it as sson as it bounced but it was not out. When they looked at the replay they discounted his whistle and went with when it should have been blown.
Crappy cause i love A&M and absolute hate Memphis.

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.

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?

Actually you could see the official on the right with a stopwatch. CBS showed the highlight in real time twice (I think that's why it took so long, CBS kept showing it in slow-mo)

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).

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

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.

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.

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

First of all I did not ignore anything. The ball hit in bounds and flew in the air. That took some time and a second is not unreasonable in my opinion. You can disagree, but that does not mean you are right. ;)

Peace

It can't.

I figured they would take at least .7 seconds off when I first saw the play (said that on the chat room). It didn't surprise me at all when they ended up taking 1.1 seconds off. Great call.

Apparently no one can.

The clock never started.
The Whistle blew.
And 3.1 became a two.


Short of someone with a rulebook to explain, this appears to be a classic case of over-officiating.

So in correcting the timer's mistake, do the officials take the amount of time off the clock from the legal touching in-bounds to the whistle, or to the touching out of bounds, which was two different times and obviously an official's error.

Jim, I kind of thought you were an idiot with your Oden post, now you've removed all doubt. Stick to softball fanboy...

Let's break this down for you piano man, nice & slow.

The ball was legally inbounded at 3.2 seconds. It touched a player B1 and then hit the court (that means it was still inbounds). The clock did not start. The ball then bounced high in the air and finally went OOB. No time came off the clock (that means 3.2 seconds still showed on the clock). NCAA rules allow the officials to use a monitor to fix timing errors. They used the monitor (and a stop watch I understand) to determine 1.1 seconds elapsed between the time the ball touched B1 and the time it went OOB.

Hopefully this clears it up for you and you can rest easy knowing that your team wasn't screwed.

I want to be clear, I don't have a problem with the outcome. As an OU fan I certainly wasn't wanting A&M to win. I just think there were a number of errors made on this play. In suggesting that it was an officials error, I was refering to the fact that as jkjenning pointed out, the T clearly signaled the ball OOB immediately after it hit the court. That is an officials error because the ball was not OOB at that point. Are we certain the clock didn't start? Considering that the NCAA uses precision timing, if the whistle was blown close enough to the starting of the clock it is possible that .05 seconds may have elapsed without the clock showing a change. I'm not one of those people that want to throw the official under the bus because of a late mistake that "cost the game". I've been the guy that got thrown under the bus for a late game snafu, by a fellow official working the game nonetheless (after reviewing the film, he apologized his rear-end off as I was right), so I certainly don't want to be the guy doing the throwing. I'm just saying that there are so many factors to be considered. Ultimately I don't think 1.1 seconds is too far from what was right had everything and everyone seen it perfectly. Unfortunately that isn't what happened so we must defer to the rules and how they say to handle the situation.

The whistle is not really relevant because the clock never started. A whistle is supposed to stop the clock, but whistles can be late also. You can't stop something that was never going in the first place.

The amount of time used, by rule, is the time lapsed from the ball being legally touched in-bounds by the Memphis player until the ball then touches something-anything-out of bounds. To try and get an accurate reading, they put the stopwatch on it-- clicked it on at the Memphis touch and then clicked it off when it touched something out of bounds. They probably did that several times to make sure that 1.1 seconds was a good, representative time. That's probably the only way that they can come up with a fairly accurate time. That's my take on it anyway.

Good job by the officials imo.

They do not use the PT system during the tournament.

There's where we disagree. I thought that the T was pointing at the Memphis player to denote that the ball was last touched in-bounds by him. That's the mechanic that they were using the whole game. Point at the player that last touched the ball in-bounds and then give a direction signal.

I agree with the outcome. It seemed to me to be about a second between the legal touching inbounds and the touching OB.

With the early whistle, it could be construed that the T thought the ball went OB on the bounce inbounds thereby changing the timing issue.

I realize that I'm starting to get outlandish, but I'm trying to foster discussion (kinda devil's advocate kinda thing), but the timer could still have started and stopped the clock so quickly that no time change was shown. I've seen it done on clocks that show tenths of a second. I'm just saying.

Except that he blew his whistle before the ball hit OB.

Again, I think they got it right in the end.

sigh.

The NCAA rules permit the officials to use the monitor to correct timing errors.

If they determined that 1.1 seconds should have come off when actually zero seconds came off that qualifies as a timing error.

Dan, a little testy?

I have no dog in the hunt.

We have your take on the call.

I asked for a rule book explanation.

Is there one? Can you cite it?

The ncaa rules are available on line. They are available to you for reference (hint search the pdf file for "monitor". If you get beyond rule 2 you've gone too far). I spent my time as research gofer in grad school, I don't think I'm ready to start that again for you, thank you very much for the offer.

Not testy at all. I don't care about your dogs or what they hunt.

If he does, what are you gonna do to check it? You don't own an NCAA basketball rule book and you've never officiated a basketball game in your life. You're obviously clueless when it comes to the rules anyway.

Or do you think that he'd really lie to you?

Now shoo, fanboy, shoo.....

Hey you think he's calling me a liar? geeze, i never considered that...sniff sniff...I need a hug.

Rule 14-51-3b.

You were not the "you" in my statement :)

I do not disagree that the ball hit in bounds and it took 1.1 seconds for it to hit something out of bounds.

What I don't understand is why the whistle is irrelevant. The trail, I can only assume, thought the ball was out of bounds, thus he blew his whistle.

What am I missing that allows the other two officials to disregard the whistle (i.e. change the call based on the monitor)?

You're missing the <b>rule</b>. The <b>rule</b> and the procedure used to determine "definite information" has been explained several times. You can either believe the explanations.... or not. It's a waste of time repeating them.

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?

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 rules about correcting errors don't always make sense to me either. But the refs who do the tournament know the rules well, and know how to apply them. You can be sure whatever they did was correct!

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.

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.

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.

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.

cite please?

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.

This is about as simple as it gets. For those of you still saying "but he blew his whistle" it doesn't matter cuz the CLOCK NEVER STARTED!!!! Therefore they can fix the timing error using the monitor and it DOESN'T MATTER whether or not he did, or did not blow his whistle.

What is your arguement now????

Okay......

According to NCAA Rule 5-13-4: "When play is resumed by a throw-in, the game clock and shot clock shall be started when the ball is legally touched by or touches a player on the playing court."

According to NCAA Rule 5-9-1&2:

"The game clock and shot clock, if running, shall be stopped when an
official:
Art. 1. Signals:
a. A foul.
b. A held ball.
c. A violation.
Art. 2. Stops play:
a. Because of an injury or a loss of a contact lens.
b. To confer with the scorers, timer or shot-clock operator.
c. Because of unusual delay in a dead ball being made live.
d. For any emergency."

For whatever reason the whistle was blown, the timer should have stopped the clock. The IW stops the clock, and except in cases where the ball is in flight on a shot, makes the ball dead.

Whether the clock was actually running or not matters not, the fact is, it SHOULD have been running, and when the whistle blew, the clock SHOULD have stopped. The purpose of the review is to correct the time so that it reflects how the clock would have started and stopped had the mistake not been made.

If the clock had started running correctly, it would have stopped when the official blew his whistle.

Section 5. Officials Use of Replay/Television Equipment
Art. 1. Officials may use official courtside replay equipment, videotape
or television monitoring that is located on a designated courtside table
(i.e., within approximately 3 to 12 feet of the playing court), when such
equipment is available only in situations as follows:

f. A determination, based on the judgment of the official, that a timing
mistake has occurred in either starting or stopping the game clock.
After the ball is in play, such a mistake shall be corrected during the
first dead ball or during the next live ball but before the ball is touched
inbounds or out of bounds by a player. When the clock should have
been continuously running, the mistake shall be corrected before the
second live ball is touched inbounds or out of bounds by a player.


The ball became dead on the whistle (IW or OOB, i don't care why he blew it). Therefore, this is when the mistake should have been corrected.

Is everyone ignoring this comment? They do use the PT system. The C is supposed to start the clock and obviously didn't. Now that brings us back to the question of is this a timing error or an official's error?

They do not use PT. They stopped a couple years back because every site didn't have PT.

This is where you're getting tripped up. The clock was never started. Therefore, it couldn't have been stopped. By a whistle, or by anything else. You need to forget about the whistle.

Does it not matter that it SHOULD have been running. I don't see how the result of the play if the timing is done correctly and the result of the play if the timing is done incorrectly can be different. I mean, it just doesn't seem correct.

If timing was done correctly, clock starts on tip and ends on whistle.

If timing is done incorrectly, and then corrected, then clock starts on tip and ends only once it's actually OOB (ignoring the whistle by the official)?

It just doesn't seem quite right.

I admit that I know a fraction of the rule book, but I just can't "forget about the whistle." It seems so illogical to me that the mechanism used to stop the clock in almost every other situation on the basketball court should be ignored due to the official timer's error.

It seems that more people are in agreement with this interpretation, but it just "seems" wrong to me.

Thanks all

Again, you have to forget about the whistle, because whether or not it was blown is irrelevant since its function in that play was to stop the clock.

But, the clock never started in that play, so the blowing of the whistle becomes irrelevant.

Thus, the officials had to judge when the ball was dead by judging when it went out of bounds, not when the whistle was blown.

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?

Timing wasn't done correctly, so you'd be better to strike this sentence from your brain. It's just causing confusion.

Focus on this sentence:

You have now answered your own question.

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).

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

message redacted

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

I started to try to, but it's 1:15 in the morning.

I'll try again after I get some sleep. You raise an interesting hypo, though.

:o

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.

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?

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

The referee, Karl Hess, did exactly that. He's quoted in the NY Post this morning as saying <i>"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."</i>

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.

I know I'm beating a dead horse (or at least a badly limping horse), but the only problem I still have with this is best explained through another hypothetical. With B face-guarding in the backcourt after a made basket, A1 passes to A2 at the middle of the FT line. B1 not seeing the ball tips it with his outstreached hand and it rolls all the way to other end of the court and goes OOB under A's basket. The C for some reason blows his whistle and raises an open hand only a moment after B1 contacts the ball.

Here is where I will put in different options to help me decipher how the original play should be handled. (A)The pass was thrown hard enough that no player from either team would have a chance at recovering the ball (I know this isn't likely given the ball has to bounce 3/4 of the court) or (B) both teams would have had a chance to play the ball but quit on the whistle or (C) A3 or B2 give chase to the ball. Given these scenarios occur in NCAA with a table-side monitor present how do we handle the timing under each of these clock situations (i) the clock does start on the contact with the ball by B1 and is stopped at the whistle, or (ii) the clock properly starts on the contact and stops when the ball goes OOB, or (iii) the clock never starts.

I know this is a bundle, there are some people already frustrated with this thread, and most will say none of these situations is equal to the original, but I'm trying to use a deductive strategy to foster some deep thought, because at the end of the day I was a philosophy major in college and as my wife tells me I like making things more difficult than needs be.

Don't know about you, but I've found my wife is usually right about these things. ;)
The fact is, this situation wasn't your hypothetical.
BTW, I did address your hypothetical.

BTW, my answers to the various scenarios go as follows:

Ai - No timing error, continue with A's ball closest to the spot the ball was at when the whistle sounded (POI).
Aii - A timing error has occured, according to NCAA Rule 5.9.1c the clock is to be stopped when the official signals a violation. The courtside monitor should be used to determine when the clock should have been stopped according to this rule. The ball should be given to A at POI.
Aiii - A timing error has occured, the courtside monitor can be used to rectify the error based on when the clock should have started and should have stopped again based on Rule 5.9.1c. (this I feel is closest to the original situation). Ball to A at the POI.

B and C - I feel that how both teams reacted to the play is not relavent to how this situation should be handled and thus defer to my above answers for B and C situations.

We can talk about ignoring the whistle all day long, but the way I saw it was the T was certainly signaling a violation (OOB). As such the clock should properly be stopped at the point of the signal according to Rule 5.9.1c. I'm pretty sure this included a whistle since hand in the air and air in the whistle are like instinctual reactions for me and go hand in hand, as I'm sure is the case with most officials. It is important to remember Rule 2.2.2 and 2.2.3 when considering how to handle the signal and whistle. We cannot just ignore the whistle and signal because to do so would be to set aside 5.9.1c and rule 2.2.2 and 2.2.3 say we can't set aside another rule or the decision of another official. It was the T's decision to signal OOB and thus we can't set that aside regardless of whether he was right or wrong.

If somebody is interpreting it that the signal wasn't made until the ball touched someone OOB then sure everything was done according to how it should have, I just saw it as the signal came as soon as the ball hit the ground.

Furthermore, I've changed my stance on the stopwatch. The rules to call for a stopwatch to be placed tableside for the use of timing TO's. Not sure it was intended for the way it was used last night, but that's where 2.3 comes in.

In the end it comes down to the question of do we get it right or do we do it by the rules. NCAA Rule 2.2.1 seems to say we do second.

sounds to me like the officials did an exellent job here after hearing what actually happened.

I would say this was an ANNOUNCERS ERROR
for opening his mouth when he didn't have a clue.

Oh wait, the announcers said they needed to come up with a number? Okay. Good to know. Why did the officials even watch the video? Why didn't they just go ask the announcers? That would have saved time.

EXCEPT FOR THE FACT THAT THE ANNOUNCERS DON'T KNOW THE RULES.

And yes, if you were watching the TV, you would have seen the officials with a stopwatch.

In a thread that was properly labelled, how has this mispost made it all the way to page 5 with no correction? It was 3.1 seconds Dan.

You're welcome.

Wow. I'm honored that you read my posts so closely.

If you'll excuse me I need to go take a shower.

Uh oh..where's Chuck?

He's hiding from Dan.

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

Hahaha very funny. Stupid monkeys

:rolleyes:

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

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.

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).

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.

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.

http://forum.officiating.com/showthr...hlight=clemson

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

I'm a bit confused. The refs did correct the time during the proper dead ball period.

I think he's just being lazy this weekend . . . sitting at some table or something.

Ed: Born Yesterday, 08:50pm
Died Today, 08:37am
R.I.P. http://www.runemasterstudios.com/gra...images/cry.gif

what's that supposed to mean?

The horse, Mr. Ed let's say, finally died... :)
...you mentioned in an earlier post that the horse was already in bad shape and I was merely confirming its death! :D
The additional hypothetical caused my brain to overload.