By what rule??? the quote you've cited above? That doesn't refer only to the closing seconds of the game, but you say it does/should. You're really reaching here, Camron.

You're the one that's being preposterous here, Camron. Of course this is EXACTLY the kind of timing mistake that needs fixing. This hypothetical is completely irrelevant to the OP.

This question is valid and nobody has provided a rule supported answer. Like I have said in my earlier post that the definition of whether there is a timing mistake or not is solely left up to the discretion of the official since they removed the lag time rule.

Fed took out lag time which took out the amount of time that would be considered a reasonable time for the timer to stop the clock that would be the measurement to determine if there was a mistake. If they intended for us to not be able to put back on the clock the exact time seen then they would've surly left a time amount in to use as a measurement.

JR would be correct in his ruling if he determined that there wasn't a mistake. If the "R" in the OP determined or made the conclusion that it was a timing error/mistake then by rule he/she can add time back on the clock.

There nothing in the rules that would state the official in the OP is wrong by adding time back to the clock. Nor does the book instruct us to not add time back to the clock, if the officials make the determination that the timer made a mistake.

What if it was .3, .4, .5, .6....What's the number we should use to make the determination? I think thats the argument. You say that you know that its greater then .2 and I would have to agree, but how do we know?

The book gives us a definite time to use on throw-in's with .3 or less to make a determination if it has to be tapped or if it can be caught. So if were not to be able to add time then why not give a definite time to use to determine if there is a mistake?

The book doesn't no longer give us a benchmark time to use to distinguish if there was a timing error. Since its no longer there then observed time can be put back on by rule since the official would have to determine that it was a timing error.

What if while the clock was running the HC calls a T/O, you blow your whistle while looking @ the clock, and notice @ your whistle there was 1 second but it stopped @ .2,.3, .4, or.5.. Are you going to adjust the time? What if the coach sees that more time runs off after your whistle?

Like I said way down the line that I think an argument could be made the the book would support either ruling on the OP play.

Reaction Time Statistics:

Here are some interesting statistics from the Reaction Time database.
These change in real time, as more people take the test.

The average (median) reaction time is 215 milliseconds.

Could this be used to say that there was no obvious mistake in the OP?

System Internationale ....
 

For those metrically challanged Forum members, I believe that's 0.215 seconds.

http://re3.yt-thm-a01.yimg.com/image/25/f10/391558249

Also: I forget, how many bushels in a peck?

OK, I've done some digging and have found references for part of my claim. As I've claimed all along, you got to know more than the printed rule, you've got to know the intent of the rule and a little history to understand some of the compactly written rules...

Look at the wording and interpretations before the change from the 04-05 rules interpretation sheet (highlighting mine):


<B>

Situation #8: </B>

As the official calls a traveling violation, he/she properly sounds the whistle and gives the signal to stop the clock. While doing this, the official is able to see the exact time remaining in the fourth quarter. The clock shows 55 seconds remaining. The timer stops the clock: (a) at 55 seconds; (b) at 54 seconds; (c) at 53 seconds; or (d) 50 seconds.
Ruling: In (a) and (b), there has been no obvious timing mistake. The timer should be able to react and stop the clock in one second when the whistle is heard and/or the signal is seen. However, in (c) and (d), more than one second of time elapsed from the time the signal was given until the clock was stopped. The referee will order 55 seconds put on the clock in (c) and (d). (5–10–1)
Comment: By interpretation, “lag or reaction” time is limited to one second when the official’s signal is heard and/or seen clearly. The rules do not permit the referee to correct situations resulting in normal reaction time of the timer which results in a “lag” in stopping the clock. Additional time which may subsequently run off the clock (after the one second lag time) is considered a timing mistake and may be corrected.

Now, look at the wording and descriptions after the change...

Comments on the 2006-07 Basketball Rules Revisions

LAG TIME ELIMINATED (5-10-1): This change eliminates the need for lag time or reaction time on the part of the clock operator. The referee may put the exact time observed 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.

So, the NFHS, in 04-05 considered 1 second to be the threshold between mistake and non-mistake....as it was beyond the allowed lag time of 1 second. Now, they've "ELIMINATED" the lag time, not cut in in half, not cut it by 4....but eliminated. The comment CLEARLY says the clock operator's reaction time is eliminated and when the official observes a time on the clock, they may put it back and should have the ability to put it back.

Now, onto the 2nd point....whether it is "optional" or not. Note that the comment says "may" and has the "ability" to put it back but doesn't use the word "shall". That is a little less clear but that grants the official the option of not restoring fractional time when there are 5 minutes left or when it is a 20 point differential with 4 seconds left. I know there is some other source that talks more directly about this but I've not yet located it.

Rule 5-6-2EXCEPTION3 states that the official is wrong in the OP to add time back on the clock.

If you think differently, then please point out to me where in the the original post I can read that the timer actually has made <b>ANY</b> kind of timing <b>MISTAKE</b> then, by <b>RULE</b>. Please be explicit. I realize that I'm not as smart as some of the other posters here. For the life of me, I can't seem to find anything written anywhere that says that the timer was slow to stop the clock, or that he actually did anything but stop the clock normally as he had also done on every other whistle during the game.

Sorry JR but it doesn't say that he is wrong. The question that you have yet to answer is when, IYO, is it a mistake and when isn't it. How much time does it take to determine that a timing mistake has happened? You can't by rule answer that since they took lag time out. Camron's post pretty much nails that down, IMO.

The point is that you don't know if in the OP that the timer made a mistake or not. You are assuming that he/she didn't. Since we no longer have the lag time rule or a pre determined time to use then it has to be assumed that if more time runs off then what you seen when the whistle was blown that it would have to be considered a timing error.

Where may I read in the original post that any <b>OFFICIAL</b> observed <b>ANY</b> time showing on the clock at <b>ANY</b> time <b>DURING</b> the play?:confused:

Is there a rule that I'm not aware of somewhere that will allow the R to put time back on the clock when neither he or any of his partners actually saw a time on the clock...at any time? :confused:

When you and OJ continue your respective searches, see if <b>you</b> can actually find something relevant to the play being discussed. Like maybe some kind of rule that will actually back up what you're trying to assert.

5.10.1 Situation D .....The timer and scorer and the other official(s) can be used by the referee to gain definite information.

In the OP there isn't tenths on the game clock but on the console. If the timer see .2 on the console then his information would be defined as definite.

How many freaking times times do I have to answer the same damn question? Was the timer <b>SLOW</b> stopping the clock? If you think so, then point out where I can read something that says that. I can't find anything anywhere that states that the timer <b>DIDN'T</b> stop the clock by rule.

Case book play 5.6.2SitG is almost the same play, and you goobers fail to admit that it even exists. Where can I read in that case play that time should be put back on the clock?

I'm done. I'm tired of pointing the same damn thing out over and over. You and Camron can give me a call if or when either of you can find something...anything...that states that the timer actually had made a mistake on this play.

Did anyone ask the timer if he actually was slow stopping the clock? You know, that he actually had committed a timing mistake? Unless the timer actually made a mistake, definite information isn't relevant in any way.

Carry on without me from now on.:rolleyes:

LMAO....goobers. :D

Alright Dude. I'm OK with leaving it as it is. I'm still cracking up over calling us GOOBERS! That was GREAT!!!:D