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?