What would you do?

[Brad]

If you don't get a clear view and see an exact time, then NO, you can't put any time back on. What you actually see is the only time that can go back on. Dem's the rules.

If there referee sees that there is some time left on the clock, that is definite knowledge! Even if the official isn't sure if it was 0.7 or 0.5, something should be put back on.

To say that you can't put any time back on because the clock was a little blurry to the official is absurd.

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by Brad

If there referee sees that there is some time left on the clock, that is definite knowledge! Even if the official isn't sure if it was 0.7 or 0.5, something should be put back on.

To say that you can't put any time back on because the clock was a little blurry to the official is absurd.

Yes, absurd.

[HawkeyeCubP]

"Definite" vs. "Exact" - the debate rages on...

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Brad

If there referee sees that there is some time left on the clock, that is definite knowledge! Even if the official isn't sure if it was 0.7 or 0.5, something should be put back on.

To say that you can't put any time back on because the clock was a little blurry to the official is absurd.

Absurd? Naw, your highlighted statement is absurd. It directly contradicts NFHS rule 5-10-1--"The EXACT time observed by the official may be placed on the clock."

It's the rules, whether you happen to agree with them or not. Definite knowledge is what you see, not what you guess.

If you can find a rule anywhere that will let an official guess at how much time to put back up on the clock, please feel free to cite it.

If you put "something" back on the clock even though you aren't sure what that "something" should accurately be, what do you plan on using to justify your actions post-game?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by HawkeyeCubP

"Definite" vs. "Exact" - the debate rages on...

Nope, "definite" and "exact are the same thing, rules-wise. The debate is knowledge versus a guess.

[jdw3018]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Absurd? Naw, your highlighted statement is absurd. It directly contradicts NFHS rule 5-10-1--"The EXACT time observed by the official may be placed on the clock."

It's the rules, whether you happen to agree with them or not. Definite knowledge is what you see, not what you guess.

If you can find a rule anywhere that will let an official guess at how much time to put back up on the clock, please feel free to cite it.

If you put "something" back on the clock even though you aren't sure what that "something" should accurately be, what do you plan on using to justify your actions post-game?

If I see the clock moving after the whistle, and it hits 0.0 before I can make a number out, I am 100% definite that 0.1 was on there at some point after the whistle. If I see multiple numbers, then I am 100% definite that 0.2 was on there.

That's not a guess, and that's all the justification I'll need post-game.

[Brad]

I think that you are reading the rule wrong. The first part states...

The referee may correct an obvious mistake by the timer to start or stop the clock properly only when he/she has definite information relative to the time involved.

You have definite knowledge if you see time still on the clock. Period. Thus, you are able to put time back on the clock.

The exact time observed by the official may be placed on the clock.

This part of the rule does not say that ONLY the exact time can be put back on the clock. It states that the exact time MAY be put back on the clock. Why? Because the rule in years past was that you had to allow for lag time. They have since changed that rule to allow officials to observe the EXACT time and put that back on.

Think about another situation -- if you have 30 seconds left in a game and inbound the ball in the backcourt. You get to a count of 5 and they still have not started the clock, so you stop the game, have the timer reset the clock to 25 and inbounds nearest to where the ball was when you blew your whistle.

That is definite knowledge but it is not "exact" -- but it is a perfectly legitimate situation under the rules.

The first statement of this rule -- that an official can correct an obvious mistake by the timer as long as the official has definitely knowledge, is independent of the second sentence that the exact time may be put back up.

[HawkeyeCubP]

Originally Posted by Brad

Think about another situation -- if you have 30 seconds left in a game and inbound the ball in the backcourt. You get to a count of 5 and they still have not started the clock, so you stop the game, have the timer reset the clock to 25 and inbounds nearest to where the ball was when you blew your whistle.

That is definite knowledge but it is not "exact" -- but it is a perfectly legitimate situation under the rules.

I was just thinking about the count being definite as opposed to exact, myself.

[JoeTheRef]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

As I wrote in another recent thread, my count is going to be a visible arm swing so that it shows up on video. Leave no doubt.

So you want your unapproved mechanic video taped? What's the difference between a silent count to yourself and a unapproved visible count? I'm not trying to be smart a**, but I'm curious?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Nope, "definite" and "exact are the same thing, rules-wise. The debate is knowledge versus a guess.

If DEFINITELY KNOW that time was on the clock when the whistle blew but I don't know exactly how much, I'm putting something up. I'm going to use whatever info I do have to come up with a number. That could counts or, for very short intervals, just a sense of time.

One thing is for sure...definite != exact.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

If DEFINITELY KNOW that time was on the clock when the whistle blew but I don't know exactly how much, I'm putting something up. I'm going to use whatever info I do have to come up with a number. That could counts or, for very short intervals, just a sense of time.

One thing is for sure...definite != exact.

Then you're guessing too. The rule was put in to stop guessing. Apparently it hasn't.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Then you're guessing too. The rule was put in to stop guessing. Apparently it hasn't.

No, I'm putting up as much time as I know information about. I'm not guessing about anything. Looking at the clock is not the only way to know something. You can't call it guessing just because someone else can figure it out while you can't. I just know it....whether you can or not.

If you watch just a few games, it becomes clear that an overwhelming majority of HS officials counts are ridiculously slow. Most that I've observed are ~50% off or more. I'd bet that my sense of time at less than 1-2 seconds is more accurate (as a percentage) than the average official's count. That definite enough for me.

The whole point of the rule change was to not penalize a team when a foul clearly occurs before the horn but the clock doesn't stop. If don't or can't look at the clock or can't just know how much time should be there with your own faculties, that's not my problem.

[Brad]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Then you're guessing too. The rule was put in to stop guessing. Apparently it hasn't.

That is not why the rule was put in Jurassic.

The rule was put in because the idea of "lag time" had become outdated. Starting in the NBA, then the NCAA, and now high school, officials can put back exactly the time that they observe on the clock -- rather than having to account for the 1 second "lag" time that was the previous rule.

That is what "exact" means in the second sentence of the rule. That the official MAY put back the exact time. It does NOT mean that the official cannot put back any time if they did not observe EXACTLY what was on the clock when it should have been stopped.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Brad

That is what "exact" means in the second sentence of the rule. That the official MAY put back the exact time. It does NOT mean that the official cannot put back any time if they did not observe EXACTLY what was on the clock when it should have been stopped.

That makes absolutely no sense imo.

Please tell me where I can find in the rules that it's OK to put any time back on the clock that you feel like if you didn't see exactly what was on the clock. What exactly are you guys using for "definite in formation"?

"Exactly" is seeing something like 1.5 seconds on the clock. You and Camron are trying to say that you can pick(guess) some other time. Well, what time are you guys going to pick? 1.4 seconds? 1.3 seconds? 1.6 seconds? etc.,etc.? And what are you basing your pick(guess) on anyway? Saying "I just know it", as Camron said?

We'll have to disagree on this one.

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

"Exactly" is seeing something like 1.5 seconds on the clock. You and Camron are trying to say that you can pick(guess) some other time. Well, what time are you guys going to pick? 1.4 seconds? 1.3 seconds? 1.6 seconds? etc.,etc.?

I understand your concerns, JR, but it seems to me there are more choices than either a) seeing the exact time or b) randomly guessing, and especially when we're talking about tenths of a second. It goes by so fast that I don't see how any "exact" time is even visible by your definition. If I look up and see 0.x where x equals the speeding tenths, surely it's not unreasonable to just sort of choose between 5,6 and 7 or between 3,4 and 5. I mean, if I blinked, I wouldn't have seen any of them, but I know the horn hadn't yet sounded.

I agree with your position when we're talking about several whole seconds and trying to arrive at some sort of estimate based on how many seconds it takes to dribble this far and pass once, and which coach I'm less patient with tonight.

But in the sitch we're discussing, I think a reasonably close guess with a tolerance of a couple of tenths isn't really what the rules are trying to eliminate.