What would you do?
 

Team A losing by 2 end of the game, goes up for shot to tie, misses, in the scrum after the rebound, the ball goes out on the endline (to Team A), L blows whistle to kill clock, as whistle blows T looks up and sees time still on the clock (tenths of a second, but how many?), then horn blows....

If you have definite knowledge you can put time back on the clock. If you want to go home you run off the court ASAP.:rolleyes:

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?

Ha ha should have gone home! This is the issue though, what constitutes "definite knowledge"? I was the T, I was covering the last second shot and I had definite knowledge that there was "something" left when the L blew the ball dead. Problem is my eyes don't read 10ths of a second that fast, so I couldn't tell "exactly" how many there were. The three of us got together and all agreed that there was no way that the clock should have run out given when the whistle blew....I happened to be the R, so I suggested that we use .4 since we all agreed that given the time lag we judged that team A should have enough time to get off a shot (not a tip)...when I went over and informed the table both coaches were actually fine with it (team B just stood there when the horn went off which gave even more credence to our theory, nobody thought it should have run out)...as it turned out A1 inbounded to A2 on a curl around a screen and she caught the ball, "gathered", and then shot so I waved it off and she missed the shot anyway it was too slow...but we talked about it afterwards and we all agreed that what I saw on the clock was enough to pass the "definite knowledge" test....

What difference would that make?:confused:

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?

Nope, incorrect. There is <b>NO</b> 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...

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...

WOW! There is so much wrong with the thought process expressed here that I'm feeling like I was just punched in the face by Evander Holyfield.
So, I'm just going to highlight the major problems.

1. If you didn't see a number, then you don't have definite knowledge. That's what definite knowledge means.

2. You can't suggest anything. You have to know. What you did was guess and that's not allowed. If you can't say I saw X on the clock, then you can't put any time back on.

3. So did she release the ball before the horn or not? You can't employ any other standard for making the call in such a situation (barring a clear timing error).
4. There is no "definite knowledge test". :confused: There is only definite knowledge.

Final summation thought: Why do people always want to invent strange concepts instead of just following the rules as written?

So are you saying that if she caught the ball, took two dribbles, then took a shot and the operator was slow to start the clock, you would count it when there was only .4 left? Nobody was counting while she took her two dribbles, so nobody has definite knowledge that the clock should have run out.

If you don't have definite knowledge, how are you going to say that the try has to be no good?

This situation is exactly why you should ALWAYS count!

What are you counting? She wasn't closely guarded, so what are you counting in this situation? I used two things to wave off the shot. First of all the horn was close enough to the shot where we could say that it was "simultaneous" and without video review wouldn't have mattered...I combined that with the common sense to know that she could not have made the movements that she made and get the shot off in .4....the only thing that technically matters is the first part of that, the second part is more thought process...

In this situation, I'm counting to one so that I can have definite knowledge that time has to have expired even if the clock is not properly started.

If the timer is a couple of tenths slow and the player actually gets .7 to make the play, that's the way it goes. I have no way of addressing that. That is the timer's job and I can't do it for him. Perhaps he's been a touch slow all game. Those are the breaks and part of the human factor in sports.

What I will not do is use some arbitrary standard such as you suggest based upon the movements of a player to declare the period over and the try no good. There is no rule basis for that.

Finally, if the horn came simultaneously with the release, then the try was not in flight when the horn sounded as required by the rule and therefore the ball is dead and the try doesn't count. The horn is what determines the call and that is for what you need to be listening. Don't bring other factors into it.

in these type of situations ... Just count - it will make your life easier!

First - I agree that with that amount of time left I am going to chop and count.

BUT - that said I understand what he is saying about the player movement and I guess the basis he might have used is that the Fed says you cannot catch and shoot with .3 sec or less - it has to be a tip. So, using that standard, if a player caught the ball it would have to be .4 and if they did any other motion it would be longer than that.

Not necessarily true. There is no way of knowing for sure how long a turn the right of left takes. What if the catch isn't clean, but a quick bobble or slip of the ball? Does an official have definite knowledge that the try can't count? Nope.

What if the clock had read 0.8, 1.4, or 2.6? How many dribbles and pivots is he going to allow before he declares time to have expired? Thinking in such a manner is dangerous as it can only lead to problems and wrong decisions.

Simply put his advocated criterion has no validity under NFHS rules and shouldn't be used.

I believe it is better to prepare yourself mentally for the scneario by thinking "ok with .4 left it is going to have to be a quick shot, no time for any other motion" than it is to just not plan for anything and whenever the horn comes it comes...you can't count to .4 so it doesn't do a whole lot of good to count in this scenario other than to say that if you get to 1 with your count then the shot definitely doesn't count...I am not saying that I waved the shot off solely based on my own criteria, the horn was right there...I guess the idea is that the "gather" means she loses the benefit of the doubt...

If you read - I agreed that with that little amount of time left, I would chop and count however - my point still is that with .4 seconds (not 1.4 or 2. 6 or even .8) and if they "fumbled" the catch - that .4 would be gone. Period. If you can't catch with .3 or less - you certainly can't fumble or bobble and not have it be .4 or less!:p

By rule though, 0.4 seconds on the clock is completely irrelevant as to whether a try is good or not. That's Nevada's (correct) point. By rule, you go by the horn when determining if the shot is in the air or not. Whether the clock started correctly or not is a whole different rule(timing mistake). In that case, a count might help you determine what to do if you felt that the clock wasn't started correctly.

In the case above with 0.4 seconds on the clock, if the ball is in the air when the horn goes, and you don't have definite information as to whether the clock was started properly or not, the rules say that you do have to count the basket.

You are still trying to bring extra stuff into it. As you gain more experience, you will realize that just officiating the game per the rules is the best way to go.

Best Wishes.

Nevada...are you counting in your head or are you giving a visible count? I think I know your answer but post it anyway...

Obviously with .4 we are only getting to 1.0 with our count and if the ball is not out of hands, we have dead ball.

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.

Having been a hobbyist muscisian for a long time, I'm counting 16th notes at 60 bpm. If I get to the third one before the horn, 0.5 has elapsed and the clock started late. No basket.

(corrected spelling for juulie's enjoyment)

Your personal integrity will tell you what to do.

Well, you might be the hobbiest musician around, but I don't think that's what you meant, eh? s/b Hobb-y-ist. Just saying...

kbilla -- what you do is whatever thought process you are going to do, and then DON"T POST THAT THOUGHT PROCESS ON THE BOARD. You post the question without admitting what you did. That way you get the answer you need for next time, without the abuse. Got it?

You are wise beyond your years grasshopper.

This is the truth...but I don't mind the abuse, it is a chat board I'm not losing any sleep over it...

Nevada - you seem to be a "by the book" guy but then say that you are going to have a visible count with seconds left in a game with the ball in the frontcourt? There is no rule / mechanic for that.

You definitely have to put time back on the clock -- even if you aren't quite sure if it is 0.6 or 0.4 ... you have definite knowledge that there was time left and it is the right and fair thing to do!

And for all of you counters out there... How the hell do you count in tenths of seconds?!? Counting doesn't really do you a bit of good in the situation outlined here.

If the ball is legally touched inbounds and you reach the count of 1 and time has not expired and no horn has gone off - you know definitively that more than .4 seconds have elapsed - perhaps even as much as 1.2 seconds.:)

OK, I guess that I just do not "count" in these situations. If there is 0.4 left on the clock, you should know what a player is able to do in that time, once you have been in enough last-second-shot situations.

Get ready to have the abuse heaped upon you. It's not so bad:D

Exactly...I slept ok;)

I think that most posters know better than to *abuse* me... The "Whack! Get Out!!!" title does have some meaning behind it! :)

If I get to ONE-THOU...then that = .4 :D :confused: :p

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?

What is a player able to do in that time?

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

Agreed

Then the <b>only</b> thing that you can put back on the clock is 0.4 seconds. That is definite knowledge. You can't put on "at least" anything else.

That's exactly what I've been saying.

Jurassic, are you saying that if I look up and see time click off after the whistle, but didn't get a clear enough view to "see" 0.1, just the motion that took it off, that I can't put 0.1 on? And if I see more than 1 "tick" of the clock, I can't put 0.2 on?

I say that's definite knowledge.

Unless you saw the actual time to an exact tenth of a second, it is <b>not</b> definite knowledge.

You can put back up the exact time that you first see when you look at the clock. And that's not what I'm saying. That's what the <b>rules</b> are saying.

When they got rid of lag time last year, this is what was stated in the COMMENTS on the new rule: <i>This change eliminates the need for lag time or reaction time on the part of the clock operator. The referee may put the <b>exact time observed</b> by an official back on the game clock. The committee felt that with new clock technology and the ability to observe tenths of a second, when an official has definite knowledge relative to the time involved, he/she should have the ability to put the correct time on the game clock."</i>

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

OK...it's under a second when I look up and see a blur of numbers and finally .4 seconds registers...can't I then say that since I saw the clock moving when I recognized the time at .4 then *at least* .4 has to go up? And if the clock was moving I should actually put up .5, acknowledging that I really don't know if it was .5 or .6 or .7...?

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.

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

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

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 <b>anywhere</b> that will let an official <b>guess</b> 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?

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

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.

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.

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

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?

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 <b>guessing</b> 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.

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.

That makes absolutely no sense imo.

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

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.

Look, in this case the only thing we are sure of is that there was *not* zero seconds on the clock at the whistle. How is it you are saying the only thing we can do is the only thing we are certain is not true?

The part that reads "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."

I have definite information that the clock was not stopped correctly. I have definite information that it should not read 0:00. At this point you use your judgement, along with information from your partners (and possibly the table) to determine the correct amount to put back on.

You keep quoting the second part of the rule -- but that is a supplementary sentence. Saying that the "The exact time observed by the official may be placed on the clock." does not preclude the officials from getting together and putting some time on the clock when they know (i.e. "definite knowledge") that some time was left when the whistle blew.

Remember the spirit of the rule here is to correct an obvious timing mistake. If you want to say, "Sorry, coach, I do know that the clock didn't stop, but I didn't see exactly at the point at which it should have, so I can't put anything on." then, yeah, we are going to have to agree to disagree... because that is horrendous.

Then how are you <b>sure</b> of the amount of time that you're planning on putting back on the clock? Do you just know it too?

Definite knowledge == I know that it definitely is not zero. I know that it is definitely below 1.0 seconds. Use information from your partners and the table along with a healthy dose of common sense to get the play right and put back time on the clock.

What if there are 3 seconds left and you blow your whistle, but don't look at the clock. Then after a few more seconds the horn blows and you look up at 0:00??? Are you going to end the game then since you don't know the exact time to put up???