time put back on the clock??

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

How many freaking times times do I have to answer the same damn question? Was the timer SLOW 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 DIDN'T 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?
.

"almost" key but relevant word...the difference is the one item that makes it not apply.

"goobers"...your typical tactic when you can't back up your claims...call people names, belittle them, and hope that your antics distract everyone from the fact that you have no support for you claim.

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

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.

As predicted, you continue to ignore the most relevant points since you have no answer for them. I've even posted the NFHS's words that prove you wrong...that the timer gets NO reaction time (it was eliminated)...which means that a mistake, by deduction, is anything more than 0.

Yet, you claim its not not a mistake for an observed and definite .2 to run off but have nothing to back that up....nothing....the case you mention doesn't mention a time at all....its about when the horn sounds after the whistle and the officials DON'T see a time on the clock.

You're not POINTING out anything, you're making it up. That's the problem. You're repeating your own definition of mistake, not the NFHS's. You've done nothing but repeat that same thing and not answer the missing points...what is a mistake? Define it! I've provided you with the NFHS definition from thier comments, yet you chose to not even acknowledge it all.

Refusing to answer the most important hole in your interpretation doesn't make your interpretation right, it just exposes it more clearly that it's wrong....the fact that you ignore it when it has been asked several times shows you can't answer it.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

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 ANY kind of timing MISTAKE then, by RULE. Please be explicit.

Ok, how about this:

Originally Posted by Moshiner1345, Original Post

...because the the score/time keeper says on his score board control box at the table there is tenths of seconds, and when the whistle sounded there was .2 seconds left

Doesn't that count?

Btw, I'm more of a Gomer fan. Although I can see Goober's appeal...

[Kelvin green]

Situation 5.6.2 was written for determining end of game not for fixing the clock.

In that sitaution:

1) Score was tied
2) person fouled
3) time expires/horn goes off
4) they have two shots
5) 1st one is made game over
6) NO T's for celebration for game being over

The plain reading of the rule is...

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. The exact time observed by the official may be placed on the clock.


There is no lag time. Cameron is right the rule assumes the clock must stop immediately, and that if we have definite knowledge of when it was supposed to have stopped we can fix it. (Does not say we have to...)

This is where common sense comes into play. If a clock doesnt stop for a second at the 4 minute mark in the first quarter who cares? Most people arent watching the clock and I would rule that as not an obvious error..

The last few seconds of a quarter it does make a difference. If I blow a whistle and look up and see it go from 24.1 to 23.6, it most likely was higher than 24.1 when I blew the whistle because it took a reaction time for me to look up... In common sense that is what the scorer's reaction time is to shut doen the clock, the same for me to look up... I will reset it in my situation above to 24.1. If it is a hard play and it runs another two seconds because I am staying with players and dont see it I am not resetting it a all. This .5 seconds that the clock did not stop is obvious to everyone.

The timer and scorer can tell me that they did not shut off the clock, but I wont guess to what the time would be...

The only way I will use a timer or scorer to assist in giving me definitive knowledge is if we had a timeout where time was recorded in the book (or they record time of fouls, keep a play by play etc) or if the tell me they did not start it and I had a count (see case book)


If you really want to get into the absurd. The rule says the timer shall stop the clock when the official signals the foul. Throughout the book signal means hand signals...

I have had a situation occur this year when had to use all the rules from -6 and 5-10
Had a game with aan old clock three point ball ball game... Ball away, foul, horn... shooter goes to the line shooting three to tie. I tell coaches that if she misses one of the first two game is over (she missed the third)

Had another gama last week.. I call OOB as trail low in the corner, whistle then horn.. Timer wanted to put time back on clock (his team of course) I did not see the clock because it was such a close/hard play at sideline. Newer partner did not look up. If i would have guessed, it would have been .2-.3 another official in the stands said it was closer to a second.... but he was up higher in stand where he could see play and clock.... If I would have seen the clock not stop on whistle I would have fixed it...

[just another ref]

Tried an experiment up at the local school today. Had the clock running with less than a minute, tenths flying by. Had three people observe carefully. When I blew the whistle, they were supposed to note the number of tenths showing.
Did it 5 times. The three observers did not all give the same answer once. They gave 3 different answers 3 times. Of the 15 responses, 2 were: I don't know. Conclusion: A mistake involving .2 seconds is not obvious to anyone.

[lpneck]

Camron- you have done a great job in this thread and are exactly right. A timing mistake, by definition, is ANY amount of time that runs off of the clock after the whistle sounds.

I get asked all the time what seperates a good official from a great official, and clock management at the end of a quarter is absolutely one of the top things on that list. If you want to make it as a "big time" official, you better be able to look at a running clock and recognize the tenth of a second it was on when the whistle blew.

Originally Posted by just another ref

Conclusion: A mistake involving .2 seconds is not obvious to anyone.

C. Vivian Stringer disagrees with you.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by lpneck

Quote:
Originally Posted by just another ref
Conclusion: A mistake involving .2 seconds is not obvious to anyone.




C. Vivian Stringer disagrees with you.

She did an experiment at her local school, too?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by just another ref

She did an experiment at her local school, too?

I thought she did her experiment at someone elses school?

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

I see your point, Camron, and I appreciate your doing that digging. However, your putting the option they give as the second point completely negates all the arguement you've done. We don't HAVE TO put the time back. So far you haven't allowed for any discretion. ALL THEY INTENDED in eliminating lag time, was to give the refs authority to put back less than a second if they felt that was just. There was no spirit or intent to force precision in sitches such as the OP.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

There was no spirit or intent to force precision in sitches such as the OP.

Huh? Where else would precision mean the most, than at the end of a close game?

Am I going to correct 0.2 in the first half? Nope, because the clock doesn't show tenths at that time. So the only thing I can correct is whole seconds. The only time the clock shows tenths is in the last minute of the quarter/half/game. That is also when tenths of a second mean more. Would I be looking closely at the end of a 20-point game? Probably not. But I would certainly be watching very closely at the end of a close game.

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Huh? Where else would precision mean the most, than at the end of a close game?

The wording is to ALLOW, not FORCE. Clearly, the committee expects the refs to use their judgment about what to do. There's nothing in the language that Camron cited that requires the ref to put the time back on the clock in the OP. It allows the ref to decide that the timer goofed (which I would say she didn't), and to make up for that. But the ref doesn't HAVE to. Camron makes it sound like it's required, and I"m disagreeing with that interpretation, and it is an interpretation, not a literal reading, Camron.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

I see your point, Camron, and I appreciate your doing that digging. However, your putting the option they give as the second point completely negates all the arguement you've done. We don't HAVE TO put the time back. So far you haven't allowed for any discretion. ALL THEY INTENDED in eliminating lag time, was to give the refs authority to put back less than a second if they felt that was just. There was no spirit or intent to force precision in sitches such as the OP.

That is EXACTLY the spirint and intent. It is expected that we manage the clock precisely when the time remaining is little. If that was not the spirit/intent, they would have just left lag time in place. Why change it and say lag time is eliminated if we still allow lag time??? That's what allowing any extra time would be.

The "option" is to not force us to manage 10ths of seconds where there are minutes left. The statements the NFHS made at the time of the change (and I can't locate the documents) clearly stated that the precision was intended for the end of close games and not other situations.