Maybe you missed this part of the rule I referenced?

AR 121 tells us what to do in the absence of a timing mistake (which is left to the judgement of the officials).

Nope, I didn't miss that. That was my point. You're still trying to use a timing mistake in stopping the clock. The original post does not contain a timing mistake. AR121 and the NFHS case play have got nothing to do with timing mistakes either.

But.....if you did go back on the original play and try to figure out how to put time back on the clock using the monitor, pray tell how are you gonna able to do that <b>accurately</b>? How do you know <b>exactly</b> to the tenth of a second when the official actually blew the whistle on this play to call the foul?

For nfhs rules sure, because there is no provision for the official to go to a monitor even if he believes a timing mistake has been made. Under ncaa rules if the official judges that a timing mistake was made then the R can utilize a monitor if available. If a mistake has in fact been made AR121 does not apply and the referee adjusts the clock per what he sees on the screen.

The monitor must display the clock to fix timing errors. In the original play either case can be reviewed but only under the second case would time go back on, because there was a timing mistake that would be shown on the monitor.

Here's the original play again:

As for the 0.1 rule of thumb..if the monitor is available it will tell you what to put back up. If there's no monitor then I frankly don't see how a human can determine 0.1 seconds. IOW it's not an obvious error. But for the obvious errors something has to come off.

That's cool. Now 'splain to me exactly how you <b>know</b>, using the monitor and clock display, exactly <b>when</b> the clock should have been stopped? The whistle for the foul is supposed to stop the clock. How do you know exactly at what point on the clock/monitor display that the whistle actually sounded? Are you really telling me that you can watch the monitor and say for certain that the <b>whistle</b> for the foul occurred with <b>exactly</b> 0.1 seconds left on the clock? Or 0.2 seconds? or 0.3 seconds?

Hell, they couldn't analyze the Zapruder film that closely. You're guessing. The rules don't allow that.

JR,
Under NCAA rules, if the monitor is consulted, the time which is put back on the clock is the time that was showing at the moment of the CONTACT for the foul, NOT when the official blew the whistle.

I know that for a fact.

Cool. Now explain why NCAA AR121 doesn't allow for monitor usage then?

I'm just pointing out what the NCAA rule book says. I'm not giving my opinion on anything.

Whether or not you think it's guessing 2-5 allows it. Period.
2-5 says it is not a guess.

And we'll try 1 more time.

AR121 applies when a timing mistake is not part of the equation.

When there's a timing mistake 2-5 dominates.

Why does the NCAA book instruct the official to use the red LED lights in preference to the display on the game clock when judging whether a last second try for goal was released in time, but when the monitor is consulted the clock showing all zeros takes a higher priority than the lights coming on?

Because there are some inconsistencies in the book. This is yet another example.

Dan_ref explained it best when he stated that the monitor rules take over IF the officials have a valid reason to consult it--such as a timing error.

So the best that I can tell you is that the call on the court with no monitor usage is what the AR says, but once the monitor gets brought into it things change.
Unfortunately, that could mean that the correct call on the court is that the try is no good and two FTs will be awarded with the lane clear and no time on the clock, but upon consulting the monitor it might be correct to put 0.1 seconds back on, count the basket, and award one FT.

Dan,
It is my understanding that the referee crew would obviously consult the monitor in such a situation to see if the try for goal was released in time. In doing so, they would then be able to clearly observe the time of the foul and decide that a timing error occurred and put that time back on the clock. Wouldn't this then necessitate scoring the goal?
In other words, AR121 is completely useless for any game that has a courtside monitor. It would only mean something for contests played without access to a monitor.

Where is the timing mistake? The timer stopped the clock on the whistle.

And......<b>how</b> do you use the monitor <b>accurately</b> to put back on 0.1 seconds or 0.2 seconds?

Ok, I went and did more research on this play for NCAA games with a courtside monitor. What I found should answer both the question asked by the OP and JR's repeated inquiry of what constitutes a timing error.



NCAA Basketball Rules Interpretations
September 19, 2005



Rules Interpretations:

Play:
At or near the expiration of time, A1 is fouled in the act of shooting and then after the foul releases the ball for a try for goal. A1’s try is (a) successful (b) unsuccessful.
Ruling:
When a foul and a try for goal sequentially occur at or near the expiration of time, the official shall use the monitor to determine whether the foul and the try occurred before the reading of 0.00 on the game clock. In (a), when it is determined that the foul occurred before the reading of 0.00 on the game clock but the try was not released before the reading of 0.00, the foul shall be penalized and the goal shall not count. When it can be determined with the use of the monitor, the official shall be permitted to put the exact time on the game clock as to when the foul occurred.
When it is determined with the use of the monitor, that both the foul and the try occurred before the reading of 0.00 on the game clock, the foul shall be penalized and the goal shall count. When it can be determined, with the use of the monitor, the official shall be permitted to put the exact time on the game clock as to when the foul occurred. When this determination cannot be made, the official shall be permitted to put the exact time back on the game clock when it can be determined as to when the ball passed through the net.
In (b), since the try was unsuccessful, the official shall use the monitor to determine whether the foul occurred before the reading of 0.00 on the game clock. When it is determined that the foul occurred before the reading of 0.00, the foul shall be penalized. When it can be determined, the officials shall be permitted to put back on the game clock the exact time as to when the foul occurred.


Interpretation for Rule 2-5.1g: When a game clock with a 10th-of-a-second display is in use and the official blows the whistle, signals for the game clock to be stopped, and in his/her judgment one second or less has elapsed before the official timer stopped the game clock, the official shall instruct the official timer to put the correct time on the game clock.


Interpretation for Rule 2-6.2: When a game clock with a 10th-of-a-second display is in use and the official blows the whistle, signals for the game clock to be stopped, and has definite knowledge that one second or less has elapsed before the official timer stopped the game clock, the official shall instruct the official timer to put the correct time on the game clock.


I will concede that the ruling in part (a) seems absurd to me. The official is going to look at the monitor and see that the foul occurred prior to the expiration of time and will put that time back on the clock, yet the successful try will NOT count because the timer/PT device couldn't get the clock stopped quickly enough upon hearing the whistle. So try explaining that one to a coach!http://www.runemasterstudios.com/gra...otallthere.gif




Ref's words: Yes coach, there was time left when your player was fouled, and that is the amount of time that is now on the clock. However, your player's basket was too late and doesn't count EVEN THOUGH THERE IS NOW TIME ON THE CLOCK! So he will be shooting two.

Coach's reaction: http://www.runemasterstudios.com/gra...illy_nilly.gif

Even 0.1 seconds is considered a timing mistake according to the interpretation above.

They can pause and go frame by frame.

1) Cool. Of course, I don't agree, but cool. My original question still stands. Explain why no time is put back on the clock in AR121.

2) Unfortunately for your thesis, AR121 says that they don't use the monitor. I'm still interested though in how you could accurately find out from the monitor whether to put 0.1 or 0.2 seconds back on the clock. You stated that they go by "contact". Well, how do they go by contact? How do they determine accurately to within a tenth of a second when contact on this particular play becomes a foul? Or do they guess?

PS- I didn't make the damned approved ruling up. It's in the NCAA rulebook. That AR is almost word-for-word the same situation as the second sequence that Dan posted above. And that situation is the same as the question asked in the original post in this thread. Both the NCAA AR and the FED case play tell you how to handle that particular play. In the AR you've got a <b>RULE</b> that says that you do <b>NOT</b> put 0.1 seconds back on the clock. All of the theses in the world can't change that little slice of history.

Logic vs. Rules
 

My fellow officials, some of us are allowing logic to cloud our judgments.

Logic says, if the foul happens before the whistle, the clock should be stopped and time should remain and the shot should count.

The rules do not say the same thing, and in fact contradict logic. I believe the rule should be logical, but it is not. Our job is NOT to determine what makes the most sense, but to implement the rules and interpretations given to us in the rule and case books.

When there are no rules to fall back on, the R may make his/her own interpretation. When the rules are in place, we must use them, even if we don't like them.

It doesn't say they don't use a monitor, it says nothing about a monitor. It also says nothing about what to do if A1 has blood all over his jersey...you saying the blood rules are suspended by AR121 too?

Anyway, I've said all I have to say on this and you're just copy/pasting the same silly questions over & over.

Later.