butch
 

well it sounds that you had it well managed and if coaches and you and your partner agreed it is a done deal...ant sport that has a clock,the period or game is over.

Well, they are saying the same thing; you just have to know how to listen to what they're saying. ;) On most clocks that do not display tenths, you'll notice that when you set it at, say, 8:00, then turn it on, it immediately clicks down to 7:59. That doesn't mean that second went by instantaneously, but rather it is now 7:59.9, 7:59.8, 7:59.7, etc., until it gets to 7:59.0, then it changes to 7:58 when the time is 7:58.9, and so on. That is why you can have a clock show 0:00, but in reality there could be 0:00.5, 0:00.4, etc. left. The horn goes off when the time actually gets to 0:00.0. That's why the rule was put in that the horn determines the end of the period, not the clock showing 0:00. Both displays show the correct time; one just shows it in whole numbers while the other shows tenths.

Of course, the only time we need to accurate down to the tenths of a second is in a last-second shot situation, with the clock stopped, such as we are discussing. That's why clocks don't even bother displying tenths until it drops under a minute. Accuracy to the second is important most of the time, accuracy to the tenth is only important some of the time.

Now, I still haven't heard a good argument as to why we <B>cannot</B> use the display on the console, hence I don't see much confusion to this discussion.

If she doesn't answer right away, leave a message. I'm 99.873% sure she might not call you back. (Just trying to be as accurate as possible.) :D

I'm not arguing that we shouldn't. I just think (my personal opinion) there needs to be a case play that makes everyone aware. That's all.

Even though its clear that I'm in favor of using the console, I have thought of one opposing point.....

Lag time.

It's safe to say that early stoppage is exceedingly rare. However, delayed stoppage does happen....and is fairly common when we're talking about parts of a second. Without having tenths on the display, no official will, when the time is under 1 second, be able to confirm that the clock actually stopped on the whistle or what time should be on the clock.

Given that, an argument could be made that the precision of the time on console can't be confirmed....that even though it may say 0.2 seconds, it should have stopped at 0.6. If that is taken into account, the claim could be made that the human factor should exist throughout....that the re-starting of the clock and the release of the shot should all be based on human factors (with the inherent lags and judgment) rather than the specific time shown on the console.

Not to be pedantic (okay, entirely to be pedantic)...

The issue is not one of accuracy, it's one of resolution. The scoreboard that doesn't display tenths is still accurate. It merely lacks the necessary resolution to display the time down to tenths of a second.

That sounds like a different issue, Camron. Regardles of how the clock gets to the time it is stopped on, it is what it is at that point, so if it says .2 then how could you argue that it shouldn't be .2? I would still say that you have to go with what it says as far as allowing a catch and shoot or not.

There is no definitive knowledge that the time should not be, in this case, 0.2 seconds. An official should never change the time in this case.

Not to add fuel to the flames but the reaction time of the clock operator to stop the clock on the whistle is not the same as the reaction time of the clock operator starting it with a visual cue. But we won't get into that because it really doesn't matter, it's so minute

-Josh

Cool - can you write that all out so it can put into a case play? ;)

While I don't disagree with your premise of a potential problem, I don't see how that prevents us from using the display, by rule. Wouldn't we have that same problem in the rare case where the clock and displays don't work, and we are going by the timer using a stopwatch at the table?

Could you perhaps elaborate on this point?

It's not a technical/rule problem...just a philosophical problem.

And yes, we'd have the same problem even if just the displays didn't work.

The point is that if there is "known" but unquatifiable imprecision in stopping the clock, that the distinction of 0.3 is not a reasonable restriction....the same known but unquantifiable imprecision should carry through to the buzzer leaving the officials to judge based on the buzzer alone.

Note that I've not changed my mind (that i would use the time shown on at least one of the clocks), just playing the DA.

Reality is messy. This same imprecision in getting the clock stopped exists at every clock stoppage the entire game. Our solution to the problem is classically human. We ignore it completely and pretend it doesn't exist. Except on those rare occasions when it is noticeable, and critical enough to somebody that they complain. Then, and only then, do we address it with a rule about what to do to fix just that one little part of the problem.

So in your DA case, Camron, I humbly suggest that unless the problem is noticeable, that it simply be ignored. :)