It IS possible for the Precision Timing System to stop without blowing the whistle and without the timer stopping it. PTS sent out the following letter on Feb. 1:

February 1st, 2008

To all officials working games with Precision Timing:

We would like to remind them once again the importance of not talking to the players with the whistles in their mouths. Doing this will cause the clock to stop. The whistle may not make a sound but it is oscillating and therefore stopping the clock. The referees should hold the whistles in their hand when talking to the players. These inadvertent stops are very disruptive to the games and can be eliminated.

We have heard of a few instances of these stops over the course of this season and I think it might behoove us to remind the referees again of this simple bottom line - Don't talk to the players with the whistle in your mouth.

We are trying to be proactive with this memo. Thanks for your help. Don't hesitate to call if we can do anything for you.

Mike

Precision Time Systems
Michael Costabile
President
910-253-9850
910-253-8720 (fax)

Interesting.

Does the Times know about this?

Not according to Rut. He's watching the clock to make sure there's not going to be a clock malfunction!!!

Hell if he was on this game he would've caught that the clock stopped on its own then started since he didn't have anything to referee he would've been watching the clock!:D

SEC/BIG EAST Comment
 

The game clock is on the same place as the shot. It is not hard to see the clock. I do not know a college gym that does not have it that way. That is easier than working a HS game where it is very rare you would see a clock in an advantageous position. And during HS games I can see the clock stop and start often. It really is not hard. I did similar things tonight and during my HS game and the clock was not on top of the basket.

Peace

This is not the case when the ball is live. I believe that this is only applicable when there is less then 0.4 on the clock and the ball is dead.

Back on page 2 #18 I posted the exact times that everything happened.

The Tennessee player first makes contact with the ball on the rebound at 0.4. She is just landing from the rebound at 0.2. The Rutgers player makes contact to start the foul 0.3 seconds after the clock stops (so it would have been after 0.0)

Thank you.

She taught you well. Good memory.

Well, something has to replace the hair follicles in his head...

Dan has plenty of hair follicles in his head. It's the ones <b>on</b> his head that are missing.

Just saying.....

Shut up.

http://scarletknights.com/news/release.asp?prID=6154

This article obviously debunks the assertion by the Times that the table @ Tennessee had no way to stop the clock.

It also implies that it is unlikely that one of the officials stopped the clock by pushing the button on the pack then starting it again by pushing the button again.

It certainly leads the reader to believe that the mistake must have come from the table, I.E the timer getting caught up in the moment and either anticipating a call or just flat out goofed. Either way it looks like this clock malfunction isn't a malfunction just the timer stopping starting the clock.

What stands out to me the most in this release is that they agree there was a foul but the foul happened after time had expired. Even so they fail to mention that if the Rutgers player would've never fouled then the shot by the Tennessee player, if it went in, would've been reviewed @ the monitor and more then likely would've not counted since she was clearly holding the ball with .2 left.

The Rutgers player didn't know that time had expired! Why pull the player down and commit a foul that would have to be called.

This whole situation is unfortunate for all parties involved. The Rutgers AD tries to pass some of the blame onto the officials for not reconstructing the play with a stop watch. The only time you reconstruct the play with a stop watch is if you have knowledge of a timing mistake.

I agree that there obviously is a timing mistake and that the foul happened after the expiration of time. I just can't IMO, fault the officials if they had no knowledge of the timing error. If they knew then the 2 who were @ the Monitor would've reconstructed the play. Those two officials are @ the top of the Women's game and have been on more big games then most. Therefore I have to believe that they had no idea that there was a timing error.

I would venture to guess that from this game and this play that there will be a change in our court-side monitor procedure.

I'm not sure where these thoughts are coming from, as the rule involving not being able to shoot with 0.3 seconds left or less has to do <B>only</B> with a throw-in or FT (5-2-5). In other words, during a situation where the clock is already (legally) stopped for a throw-in or FT, the rule says you cannot "catch-and-shoot" with 0.3 sec. or less, you can only tap the ball in that amount of time.

Otherwise, during a live ball situation, the only requirement is that the ball be "clearly in flight" on a try or tap before the horn sounds. (5-6-2, exception 1).

I realize what you are saying...but if a player can't catch and shoot with .3 left after a dead ball what makes you think the player can catch an shoot with .2. My point is that more then likly she wouldn't have got the ball off in time. Time is time, in the replay she is clearly holding the ball with .2.

Because there is no such rule. Additinally, there is not even a suggestion that a player holding the ball can't get a shot off in 0.2. The rule you're referring to says they can't catch-hold-shoot in 0.3. You've got the player starting the catch at 0.4. How long does the catch take? Apparently, it can be short enough that from 0.4 to 0.0, there is time to shoot. You can't subdivide the 0.4 to say that any particular part of the action has to occur at a specific time.