Yep, you gotta keep the boss happy. Coaches, they're not expected to be happy. But like I mentioned above, I'm not going to volunteer how I came up with the amount of time I'll put on the clock. I'm going to instruct the clock operator how much time to put on the clock. I'm going to tell the coaches what we're going to do. Then we're going to resume play after the time out.

So I'm curious (I haven't finalized my opinion on which is the right thing to do yet) how much time would you put on the clock? Would you go with .4 to make things interesting or .2 and see if the miracle shot could make it on youtube?

You're putting yourself into a potential dilemma here, should the coach actually know the rule and ask you how you came up with the time you chose.

"Coach, it's my best guess."
"Coach, I know because the little gnome in my head told me."

The time required to turn your head to look at the clock is less than it takes to catch and shoot, which we are told is greater than .3 seconds. I do realize > .3 is an average of sorts, but it's an official average. I'm probably going with .2 seconds. But anywhere from .1 to .3 would produce the same result, only a tap can score. The teams will draw up the same plays in their huddles regardless of .1, .2 or .3. That is why I'm not too worried about the exact amount on this play.

You are right, there is some risk. If forced, I'd probably give my reasoning as explained above. Followed by, "That's what we're going with. Let's get ready."

Yet, the arm motion is an in/out motion...each taking a half second...hmmm.

And if you, with a fairly even cadence, count with "one-thou-sand-one-one-thous-and-two-one-thou-sand-three" you have quarter seconds right there....not so hard. Or from the musical realm...1-e-and-ah-2-e-and-ah...which is a bit easier to have an even cadence with.

There's a big difference
 

In the case play you sited, the clock was started properly. There is no timing mistake on the part of the clock operator. There is no rule support for correcting an official's timing mistake. And for good reason. We don't want to open a can of worms by forcing the officials to be more accurate with their timing. Can you imagine the pain it would cause?!?!?!? In the OP the clock operator didn't stop the clock in time. So we can put time back on the clock in this scenario. Big difference.

If you have definite knowledge of how much time to put back on, you're right. If Camron has a mental count going indicating quarter seconds, he can put it back on. But the scenario being played here has no such animal, no official had a mental count going in any intervals.

Without a count of some sort, you have no basis for putting time back on. We may not have a precise definition of "definite knowledge," but I'm going to stick my neck out and say one thing it definitively cannot mean is "best guess."

Cool, you've given me half and quarter second intervals. So you admit getting to a specific tenth would still be an estimate, based on your half or quarter second counts? Again, how do you tell the difference between .03 and .04, which would make a big difference at the end of a close game?

Camron, I don't disagree it "feels right" to put "something" back on the clock. And, probably most times, no one would argue with you, because no one will know the rule specifics. But that still doesn't make it correct under the current rules. And I would rather take the chance of someone challenging my ruling, because it can be backed up by written rule, rather than being challenged on your method, which cannot be backed by rule without a leap or two of logic.

Yep, the important thing is that you have some sort of measurement of time to fall back on.

I had a game in which we were having clock problems the entire 1st quarter. With about 8 seconds left Team A had throw-in under its own basket. The ball was passed to A1 in the corner who then proceeded to drive to the basket. I notice the clock hadn't started so I started a mental count b/c I didn't want to interrupt the play to the basket. A1 missed the lay-up which was followed by a missed tap then a scamble for the ball. By the time I reached 1-thousand-8 in my head A2 had retrieved the ball near the 3-point line and started gathering himself for a jump shot. Clock had still not started. I blew my whistle and killed the action followed by A2 releasing the shot.

I did that to end the 2nd quarter of my first varsity game in my previous association. I'd been put on the game with our board president since I was new to the area. I was T for a BC throwin and noticed the clock didn't start (5 seconds left). A passed too much and never got off a shot, no one complained when I killed it and called the quarter.

Fixed it for you. ;)

Go with that timeless classic "one-mis-sis-sip-pi, two-mis-sis-sip-pi, ..." and you're down to 1/5 second timing.

It may be a "best guess", but it's one based on concrete information. As opposed to "well, there's got to be some time on there."
We're talking about a situation that up until a couple of years ago was not correctable by rule.

Really, what concrete information? That it takes somewhere in the neighborhood of roughly 1 second to swing that arm? That's not concrete. It's definitely not accurate to a 10th of a second. And it's only definite, whatever that means, because the rules say it is.

"There's got to be some time on there", OTOH, is a true statement. And, unlike the arm swing or counting one-ba-na-na, two-ba-na-na, it's a statement that makes no (false) claim to precision. It simply is statement of fact. If the whistle clearly sounded before the horn..."there's got to be some time on there."

And everybody in the arena that heard whistle before horn knows it is a true statement.

So riddle me this...

If the rules consider a timepiece as wildly varied and demonstrably inaccurate as an official's count, visual or silent, "definite information" suitable for correcting the clock...

If that very same rule also specifically grants us permission to use "other official information", while neither specifying nor restricting what that means...

How can you seriously argue that, in this specific case, the official's estimate is not "other official information"?

I'm not talking about a SWAG here. I'm talking about a well-informed estimate, calculated from an abundance of very clear and definite information, which includes the official's own "observation" of how much time elapsed between the whistle and the horn. An observation, I hasten to add, made with the same gray matter timepiece the rules require him to use to time short periods of time, timings that are specifically defined as "definite information".

Snaqs brings up a valid point. 1/10 second precision is a relatively recent addition. The rule allowing us to put exactly the time observed back on the clock is only a couple of years old. The .3 seconds rule isn't much older than that. We're slowly breaking new ground, slowly figuring it out. But we cannot possibly be done, this thing is still broken.

The current rule about "fixing" the clock is ... charming. Eccentric. Like that weird aunt your mother never invites to dinner. It falls somewhere between uselessly ambiguous and suitably vague, depending upon your intentions. Mostly, it cannot decide which century it wants to be in.

One foot is firmly rooted in the wildly popular 20th century. When the finest granularity you had was a single second, any means of measuring time that was accurate to the nearest second was accurate enough. The official's count, fit the bill.

It's other foot is burrowing into the 21st century. Since we now commonly display and utilize tenths of a second, it makes sense to allow us to put the observed time back on the clock, down to the tenth of a second.

The rule happily embraces both paradigms. We allow a source of "definite information" that can be off by as much as 20%, and we embrace the observation of time accurate to the tenth of a second. But wait, there's more...

We're also specifically allowed to use "other official information". We're just not told what that means. But then, we're not told what excludes either. Except curiously we're told we absolutely cannot use the monitor. The single most accurate potential source of "definite information" is verboten, forbidden, off limits.

What amuses me about this whole debate, is that people are SERIOUSLY arguing about whether we can adjust the clock by a couple tenths of a second based on a clearly reasonable estimate when the rules freely allow adjustments of many seconds based on a source of information we all acknowledge is wildly inaccurate. It makes no sense.

If I put .2 seconds back on the clock in my game based on an estimate of how much time elapsed in the OP, and you take 10 seconds off the clock in your game based on your 10 second count, and our assigner reviews both tapes with a stopwatch...which of us is really guessing? Whose estimate is going to be more inaccurate?

You know I'm right.

The problem here, is the rule. It's ambiguous, it's all over the map, it allows 1/10 second accuracy while encouraging multiple second inaccuracy. It cannot make up it's mind about how good is good enough. It's busted.

Plus Or Minus Twenty Percent ...
 

I'm an environmental chemical analyst. In analyzing samples, for every twenty samples in a batch we have to randomly select sample for a duplicate analysis. If the results of the actual sample and the "rep" (replicate, or duplicate) are the same, this is one way for us to confirm that our reagents, equipment, instruments, procedures, etc. are working properly, and we can then, and only then, proceed to report the results of all twenty samples in that particular batch to our clients. In our industry, if we get a "rep" result that is 20% or less, or 20% or more, than our actual sample, it is considered that we have successfully duplicated the result, and the batch of twenty samples successfully passes. I happen to work with an instrument that measures accurately down to one milligram per liter (one part per million). The minimum detectable level of my instrument is 0.02 milligram per liter (0.02 parts per million).

If I may chime in late...

There is an interesting dilemma here.

The folks that want to pitch their tent in the game ending camp are stuck.

They TRULY believe the rules back their assertions that even though common sense says there "should be time" left on the clock (because of the whistle before the horn) they can not put time back on the clock because they TRULY believe there is NO provisions in the rules.

These officials would definitely be putting aside a rule, in their minds, if they did anything else but end the game.

Too bad...because you see, us fat dumb and happy officials who see the rule differently...can, with good conscious...put time back on the clock. (For the reasons so eloquently elaborated on in previous posts)

In our "fat" camp...we have NOT put aside a rule (in our minds) and therefore, can not be chastised by any of the true rule purists.

We are happy with our ruling, the coaches WILL be happy with our ruling, the players are happy with our ruling, the fans are happy with our ruling, even our assignor is happy with our ruling. Everybody is happy, except the miserable officials that truly believe the rule says you can not put time back on the clock.

Sometimes...ignorance is truly bliss. ;)

BITS is right. Indeed, one gym near me has hundreths of a second showing under a minute!

Barring replay showing tenths, I would endorse the ruling that "definite" does not require "exact" (whatever that comes to). Sure, that will involve officials' judgment about how much time to put up. What's the fairer alternative?

We had this play in my game Tues night:

Foul in the last minute of the quarter. Some "skirmishing" after the whistle. By the time anyone could look at the clock, it read 13.1 and was still running. By the time we could get it stopped, it read 10.something.

Clearly, and by common sense, the foul happened with more than 13.1 left. But, what could we put on the clock?

Why is it different if it's 3.1 or 1.31 or .31 left when you notice the clock?

It's concrete, because the book says an official's count may be used.

Maybe your assignor is happy. I have a couple who would not be happy.

I say put 18.0 back on the clock. You can say you know it took 5 seconds to break up the skirmish. If anybody asks how you came up with that number just tell them "I felt it in my bones". It will make every happy.

There is a big difference in the OP and in this situation. In the OP you've instant recognition that the clock did not stop, and instant recognition that that very brief interval between whistle and horn is significant. And you've got quite a lot of additional objective information that all corroborates the elapsed time being only a small fraction of a second.

In your situation, you have additional, unusual activity that required your full attention between the whistle and the recognition that the clock did not stop. You also have a period of time that cannot be reliably estimated any closer than "a few seconds". You have not indicated any "other official information" that would help. So what can you do? Put up 13.1 and go with it. It's what I would do, and what I would argue that any of us should do.

BTW, I have never argued that we should make a "wild guess". I have not suggested we use a "rough estimate". If you have no definite information, you cannot make it up. In most cases, I don't believe we can do any better than the time observed plus/minus an official's count. The OP is a pretty unique situation with a very high probability that a well-informed estimate would be right to within 1/10 of a second.

In my high school science classes I was taught that the result of any calculation is only as precise as the least precise factor used. So if you have two weights, one measured in 10ths of a gram and the other in grams, no matter how certain you are of the first measurement, the result must be rounded to the nearest gram.

So what are we saying when we allow both 1/10 second precision and also nearest second (roughly) accuracy?

What if it were the same situation as above but the "skirmish" took a lot more attention to settle down and before you and your partner knew you heard the horn. Game over?

You put 14.1 on the clock right? Because you had definite information that the skirmishing lasted longer than one second and you saw 13.1 left. You added those two to get 14.1. I don't mean that flippantly, I just am trying to understand how you can say you only had definite information of the 13.1; if they pushed and shoved for a few seconds you could be sure it was at least 1 (maybe even at least 2 --depending on what you had definite knowledge of) and it seems you should give those seconds as well.
________
The Sanctuary of Truth Wong Amat

Both or all 3 refs should not be in the middle of the fray. One official should always be standing back observing, which would include the time on clock.

I will add that this year's interps contain "the opposite" play where the clock does not start. The official is directed to take some time off, even though s/he has no direct knowledge of how much time should have been used.

I think we are all concur that looking at the clock simply by one of the officials constitutes enabling the clock to have time awarded to it. But in this situation at the end of a reasonably close game with you and your partner both focussing on the "skirmish more than the clock (which I think my assignor would prefer) let the game end?

All my supervisors say that they want at least one official standing back. If both/all are focusing on that one skirmish then another one could break out undetected, or players could be leaving the bench, etc. But when in Rome....

We had one official watching the 2 players directly involved, one watching the 4 or so that were close to the play and moving in, and one watching the perimeter (and he was opposite, so he would have seen the benches).

That doesn't leave anyone for the clock (at least not right away).

Understandable for the first few seconds. But not for the entire 13+ seconds, IMO.

The kicker is if this all started with 2 or 3 seconds remaining, and the clock ran out. Of course, Bob's crew would have known it was close and taken a glance.

Without being flippant let's say you are working with a newbie like me. You go to break up the skirmish having pre-gamed the situation even and I botch it. I panic. I don't look at the clock and don't do my job with 3 or 4 seconds left the horn sounds. Do we end the game?

If I'm working with a newbie then I will be extra diligent in my clock management. I'm the one who would get the a$$ chewing if we screwed up something like that.

One of the things I'm working on is that it be 2nd nature to glance at the clock every time the whistle blows, regardless what part of the game we are in.

Clock-glancing doesn't come easy
 

I find "clock-glancing" a difficult thing to get into the habit of doing. If my partner blows his whistle for a foul, I am focused on helping him determine if the ball went in the basket, helping him make sure he has both the shooter and the fouler, making sure there's no extra-curricular activity among the players...then the clock. By the time I do all of these things first, I've often neglected to check the clock. I'm afraid if I move "clock-glancing higher on this priority list, I'll miss something else even more important.

Any suggestions for getting into this good habit?

I know it's hard and I'm still not nearly as proficient as I should be. But it's only a glance to get a number in your head. But trust me, the first time the clock runs too long and you step with a confident "there should be 2:15 on clock" your stock will rise.

And it's doubly important when working with a shot clock.

Thank God We Had A Well Mannered Coach ...
 

Happened to me in a girls varsity game a few years ago. Three point shot near the end of the second period. I'm the trail. Ball bangs onto the rim and bounces high into the air. I figure that there's not going to be any basket interference in a girls game, so I peak at the clock in case there's a rebounding foul. While I'm "clock-glancing", and while my partner is keeping his eyes down looking for rebounding fouls, the ball hits the cable above the basket. Of course everyone sees it hit except me and my partner. I turn to see the ball going in the basket, which is followed by the buzzer sounding. I count the three point goal. My worst call of that year.

Of course I topped that worst call with a "worser" call the following year, a fist violation. But that's a story for another night. Sleep tight.