Free Throws with 0.00 showing on the clock...

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

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

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

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

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

They can pause and go frame by frame.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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

2) 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 RULE that says that you do NOT put 0.1 seconds back on the clock. All of the theses in the world can't change that little slice of history.

[Grail]

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.

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

2) Unfortunately for your thesis, AR121 says that they don't use the monitor.

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.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Dan_ref

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

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

I'm pretty sure that's what Dan_ref just said to you.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

I'm pretty sure that's what Dan_ref just said to you.

Actually, to be precise, I think he is saying....

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

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.

Because without a monitor it would nearly impossible to have the knowledge needed to make such an adjustment to the clock.

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

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?

They view the video and use their best judgment to determine when the contact that constitutes a foul takes place. Once the officials determine the point on the video replay when that happens they freeze the display and look at the little clock on the screen. Whatever that clock says is the amount put back on. Sound simple enough?

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

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 RULE that says that you do NOT put 0.1 seconds back on the clock. All of the theses in the world can't change that little slice of history.

How about a rule interpretation from September 19, 2005?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

How about a rule interpretation from September 19, 2005?

How about an approved ruling in this year's NCAA rulebook?

Shrug....

[Mark Dexter]

I think it's time for a refill.



And maybe something to drink.