Sorry!
 

It seems logical to me to use words as they are defined when another definition is not available. For now on, I'll use words as the person I'm talking to defines them. So please download your dictionary so I can know what you mean by "definite", since I obviously can't use the definition used by billions of people every day. By the way, the word "definite" is not defined in the rule book. That's why I reverted back to the dictionary's definition. But since I'm not allowed to do that, I'll ask the NFHS rules committee to define each and every word they use in their rule book. Look for next's year books to be the size of War and Peace! :)

You do it your way, and the way "the person you're talking to" (namely a coach) wants you to do it.

I'll do it my way. I know my way can be backed by the rule book no matter how unpoplar the outcome is. Good luck explaining your way to a supervisor. ;)

The science of the game vs. the art of the game!

I love it! ;)

Lighten up!
 

I was just having some fun!

Yeah, but 0.2 or 0.5? Makes a difference. I agree with whoever said I dont want to be in this situation, lets make sure we have a look. :) I know that is the easy way out of this one.

I know.

But I wanted the last word. :p

Ok, I'll let you have the last word!
 

lol!

Not really, it's more like the conflict between rules and "common sense." The problem is, "common sense" is not so common and actually differs among most people when it comes to details like this.

Rulebook aside, you can look at it this way:

We know that there are finite number of possible answers (assuming the 1/10th granularity of the clock):

0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1

We also know that there is one answer that it CANNOT be:

0.0

It bugs me that we are going to choose the one single answer we know for certain is NOT the correct amount of time left in the game, because we cannot exactly determine which of the other answers is the correct one, but would have to rely on an estimate, because the books demands "definite" knowledge.

That's the problem, we can't nor should we put the rulebook aside, especially in this situation.

By rule, it certainly can be.

To me, it is fairly clear that the rule makers do not want the officials to guess on the amount of time to subtract from or add to the clock. While this may not be "fair", it should provide for a consistent administration.

There are numerous rules that don't seem fair in all sports, the inadvertant whistle rule in football for example is not always "fair". I think we can get into some dangerous areas when we decide which rules to set aside because they do not meet our definition of "fair".

You should suggest a rule change then.

What do I tell the coach if I do not have definite knowledge? "Sorry coach, that's the rule."

After reading this entire thread I'm undecided which way I lean, however I do agree with the absolutes of following the rule book (which is why we have it to take the decisions of what is fair out of our hands), however I am intrigued as to how those who claim the rules to be the absolute final answer to interrupt things such as rule 4.19.11 (multiple fouls)?

I realize you can argue the "approximately" factor, however what is the reasoning for having the rule in there if we are never going to call it? If by definition we followed the rules strictly by what they say then why not more multiple fouls?

Really I am curious as to what you all have to say, so I'll sit back and enjoy your comments......I don't need the last word! ;)

We also know it makes a difference whether you put on 0.3 or 0.4.

ART. 1 . . . The referee may correct an obvious mistake by the timer to start or stop the clock properly ...

If you clearly hear the whistle then the horn, there has been an obvious mistake. We no longer have a lag time rule. We are allowed to expect the clock to stop immediately.

... only when he/she has definite information relative to the time involved....

This whole argument boils down to what this phrase means. It's noticeably laced with weasel wording like the undefined "definite information" (which we agree does not equate to "exact information"), "relative" (which implies, but does not define, a relationship between "definite information" and "the time involved"), and "to the time involved" which is not exactly a model of precise language.

This whole sentence is a far cry from something like: "The referee may correct an obvious mistake by the timer to start or stop the clock properly only when he/she knows exactly how much time ran off the clock, or should have run off the clock, while it was not properly started or stopped."

Do you suppose the committee lacked the linguistic skills to craft more precise wording? Or did they purposely introduce ambiguity in order to give the referee some discretion and latitude in how to fix obvious mistakes?

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

Notice the word "may". Some of the arguments made so far seem to say that if the exact time wasn't seen, no time can be placed on the clock. Nothing in this rule says that. However, if the exact time is seen, it may be placed on the clock.

ART. 2 . . . If the referee determines that the clock malfunctioned or was not started/stopped properly, or if the clock did not run, an official’s count or other official information may be used to make a correction.

Again, an official's count "may" be used, not "must" be used nor "is the only definite information that may be used," just specifically allowed. And this count not even restricted to a "visual count". A silent count qualifies. Many of us routinely count down the final few seconds in our heads.

Also, what constitutes "other official information"? Is that information from some source officially recognized as official? Is it information obtained from an official? Is an official an official source of official information? Whatever this "official information" is, it is clearly in addition to an official's count.

There's a lot of exceedingly strong arguments being made about exactly what must be present in order to correct the obvious timer's mistake in the OP. But the rule that actually allows the referee to correct such a mistake, well it's not looking so exact to me.

BITS - in any of the language you've read, have you come across anything comparable to: estimate, approximate, something, best guess, etc.?

I know the argument has been made before, but I have read no one in this thread state that we had to know "exactly" how much time to put back on. If you look up and see .8, it's a safe bet that there was at least .9 on there, but you can only put .8 because that's the extent to which you have "definite knowledge relative to the time involved."