What would you do?

[atcref]

You Have definite knowledge of time on the clock, so you have to put some back on. We all know that less than 3/10's does not allow for a shot, and that it takes time to hear the whistle and Then look. Was the time between the whistle and the look long enough to shoot a ball?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by atcref

Was the time between the whistle and the look long enough to shoot a ball?

What difference would that make?

You put up what you see on the clock. Period. End of story.

The rule was changed to simplify the call. Don't overthink the play.

[kbilla]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

What difference would that make?

You put up what you see on the clock. Period. End of story.

The rule was changed to simplify the call. Don't overthink the play.

What I am saying though is that what I saw was a blur of 10ths of a second running off, so you have to use some judgement here correct?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by kbilla

What I am saying though is that what I saw was a blur of 10ths of a second running off, so you have to use some judgement here correct?

Nope, incorrect. There is NO judgment of any kind involved. You put up exactly what you see on the clock at the time of the whistle. No guesses allowed. If you didn't see a definitive time, you can't put anything back up. If it was blurred and you didn't get a definitive time, game's over.

[kbilla]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Nope, incorrect. There is NO judgment of any kind involved. You put up exactly what you see on the clock at the time of the whistle. No guesses allowed. If you didn't see a definitive time, you can't put anything back up. If it was blurred and you didn't get a definitive time, game's over.

This was my devil's advocate argument to my partners after the game....what we came up with was that I saw .4 on the clock....I also saw .3, .2, .1 and .00, but I may have also seen .5 or .6...everyone seemed satisfied that the ruling was the "fair" thing to do, but I understand that this does not make it correct which is why I appreciate the input...

[jdw3018]

Originally Posted by kbilla

This was my devil's advocate argument to my partners after the game....what we came up with was that I saw .4 on the clock....I also saw .3, .2, .1 and .00, but I may have also seen .5 or .6...everyone seemed satisfied that the ruling was the "fair" thing to do, but I understand that this does not make it correct which is why I appreciate the input...

If you actually did see .4 on the clock, then you had definite knowledge. I don't see every number in the tenths, but when looking will see some of the numbers. If you know you saw .4, and that is the highest number you definitely saw, then that is what you put on the clock.

I would also say that if you look up and see tenths running but don't get one pulled out, you have definite knowledge that at least .1 is left, and if you see multiple numbers then at least .2. Others will certainly argue otherwise, but I can say that if I look up and see multiple numbers run off before 0.0, then I have definite knowledge that at least .2 was left...

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Nope, incorrect. There is NO judgment of any kind involved. You put up exactly what you see on the clock at the time of the whistle. No guesses allowed. If you didn't see a definitive time, you can't put anything back up. If it was blurred and you didn't get a definitive time, game's over.

I tried to read thru this thread once and got completely confused. So maybe someone's already asked this, maybe not -

Doesn't he have definite knowledge that there was NOT zero seconds on the clock? If we agree on that, how can he leave 00:00 up there?

[jdw3018]

Originally Posted by Dan_ref

I tried to read thru this thread once and got completely confused. So maybe someone's already asked this, maybe not -

Doesn't he have definite knowledge that there was NOT zero seconds on the clock? If we agree on that, how can he leave 00:00 up there?

And that's why I said he had definite knowledge of at least 0.1.

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by jdw3018

And that's why I said he had definite knowledge of at least 0.1.

And what I also think I read is that .4 seconds is the first number that registered in his brain. If that's true then we need to put at least .4 back on, not .1