What would you do?

[kbilla]

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....

[gordon30307]

Originally Posted by kbilla

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.

[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?

[kbilla]

Originally Posted by gordon30307

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.

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....

[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...

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by kbilla

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....

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". 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?

[kbilla]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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". 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.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by kbilla

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!

[kbilla]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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...

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by kbilla

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.

[Johnny Ringo]

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