End of game situation

[rwest]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Agreed.


You tell me - what does rule 5-6-2, Art. 2 & 3 say about that very question?


There isn't a hole in the rules. The rules tell us exactly how to handle the situation. If the officials screw up and do not have definite information, as defined by the rules, then there is nothing, by rule, that can be done.

Moral: Have a count, or look at the clock in these situations. Otherwise, follow the rules. Pretty simple, actually. Whether of not we agree with them.

If you don't think the rules are "fair", then work to be on the committee and change them. Otherwise, it makes it hard for those officials that come in after your game and follow the rules, and all they hear is, "The officials in the last game let us do this..." I don't think it's "fair" that a player and team should be penalized because their AD (or even a secretary) didn't order the proper uniform on time, but I don't get the option of letting it slide this time, because it's just not fair. I get paid to enforce the rules, as written. No more, no less.

Visitors down by 1 after home team makes a basket. Clock operator is a homer. Visitors call time out and you grant it after time has gone below 1 second but before the buzzer sounds. Clock operator lets the clock run out.

Game over? You heard the request for a time out. You granted it while there still was time on the clock, just not showing on the score board.
You have definite knowledge the game is not over and that time was still on the clock. I have definite knowledge that there was less than 1 second but more than 0 seconds on the clock.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by rwest

Visitors down by 1 after home team makes a basket. Clock operator is a homer. Visitors call time out and you grant it after time has gone below 1 second but before the buzzer sounds. Clock operator lets the clock run out.

Game over? You heard the request for a time out. You granted it while there still was time on the clock, just not showing on the score board.
You have definite knowledge the game is not over and that time was still on the clock. I have definite knowledge that there was less than 1 second but more than 0 seconds on the clock.

What does the rule book say you should do?

[rwest]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

What does the rule book say you should do?

If you have definite knowledge. I have definite knowledge that less than 1 second but more than 0 seconds was left in the game.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by rwest

If you have definite knowledge. I have definite knowledge that less than 1 second but more than 0 seconds was left in the game.

Is that how the rule book defines "definite knowledge"? If so, what rule or case play are you using?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by rwest

If you have definite knowledge. I have definite knowledge that less than 1 second but more than 0 seconds was left in the game.

How much time you going to put back on? .2? .3? .4? .5? .6?

[Berkut]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

How much time you going to put back on? .2? .3? .4? .5? .6?

Day or night game?

[rwest]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

How much time you going to put back on? .2? .3? .4? .5? .6?

Let's use another example. You call traveling. Let's say it is at the 2:15 mark. However, you didn't check to see if the clock stopped and you don't know the time when you called traveling. You look up at 2:10 and the clock is still running. At 2:05 you get the clock operator to stop the clock. Are you going to put 2:10 on the clock? If so why? Did you have definite knowledge of how much time to put back on the clock? No! You knew that at least 5 seconds had expired but not that 10 seconds had run off. That's not definite knowledge. What are you going to do in this scenario?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by rwest

Let's use another example. You call traveling. Let's say it is at the 2:15 mark. However, you didn't check to see if the clock stopped and you don't know the time when you called traveling. You look up at 2:10 and the clock is still running. At 2:05 you get the clock operator to stop the clock. Are you going to put 2:10 on the clock? If so why? Did you have definite knowledge of how much time to put back on the clock? No! You knew that at least 5 seconds had expired but not that 10 seconds had run off. That's not definite knowledge. What are you going to do in this scenario?

Good example. I put back what I know should go back on. I'll set the clock at 2:10 here, because I know at least that much came off. In the OP, I don't "know" what came off after the whistle, so I can't put anything back on.

Different example. Throwin in the backcourt. You glance at the clock just before handing it and see it's at 3:00. Ball is inbounded and there's pressure so you can't look at the clock. Your BC count gets to 8, then he crosses and has a few seconds without any count before a defender approaches. You start a 5 second count and get to 3 before he passes. You look at the clock and it hasn't moved. How much time do you take off?

[rwest]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Good example. I put back what I know should go back on. I'll set the clock at 2:10 here, because I know at least that much came off. In the OP, I don't "know" what came off after the whistle, so I can't put anything back on.

Ah, but you don't have definite knowledge. You know that at least 5 seconds have elapsed, but that's not what "definite" means. It means "exact". You don't have exact knowledge. Therefore, by your interpretation of the rule you can't put 5 seconds back on the clock. I agree with you that's what we should do, but you can't by your interpretation.

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Different example. Throwin in the backcourt. You glance at the clock just before handing it and see it's at 3:00. Ball is inbounded and there's pressure so you can't look at the clock. Your BC count gets to 8, then he crosses and has a few seconds without any count before a defender approaches. You start a 5 second count and get to 3 before he passes. You look at the clock and it hasn't moved. How much time do you take off?

By your definition of the word "definite", I don't take any off. But I would take off at least 11 seconds because I know that 8 plus 3 is eleven but I don't know how many seconds elapsed between gaining front court status and starting my 5 second closely guarded count. This is actually a good example that proves my point. If I know that I granted time out before the buzzer sounded, I know that there is some time that should be placed on the clock. I know that there is less than 1 but more than 0 seconds left. In your example we know that at least 11 seconds has elapsed but could be more. So if you say I can't put .4 seconds on the clock in my example because I don't have definite knowledge, neither can you take 11 seconds off for the same reason. You don't have definite knowledge.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by rwest

Let's use another example. You call traveling. Let's say it is at the 2:15 mark. However, you didn't check to see if the clock stopped and you don't know the time when you called traveling. You look up at 2:10 and the clock is still running. At 2:05 you get the clock operator to stop the clock. Are you going to put 2:10 on the clock? If so why? Did you have definite knowledge of how much time to put back on the clock? No! You knew that at least 5 seconds had expired but not that 10 seconds had run off. That's not definite knowledge. What are you going to do in this scenario?

Hmm...let me think...how about follow the rules? How about 5-10-1: "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."

So, what happens if an official didn't look at the clock? How about 5-10-2: "If the referee determines that the clock was not started or stopped properly, or if the clock did not run, an official's count or other official information can be used to make a correction".

I've given specific rules and case plays. All you've given are "what if's" and "what's fair". I would be more than willing to listen to your arguments if you can supply some sort of rule backing to your statements.

[Berkut]

This seems like a basic debate between two officiating philosophies:

1. The rules are the rules, and should be enforced as written at all times, regardless of the "fairness" of the outcome.

2. The rules are the rules, but they are there to enforce a certain desired outcome (namely a fair match), moreso than on any strict adherence to the letter of the rules, while potentially ignoring the spirit and intent behind the rules.

I am not arguing that one is "right", I can see the arguments for both positions. Personally, I probably lean towards the second position, while understanding the pitfalls involved in it when it comes to consistency and application.

To me though, at the end of the day, it comes down to judgement, and doing what is "right" - and I realize, and accept, that two people can both come to different conclustions about what is right as well.

I don't think the rules should be changed, because changing them to "allow" this kind of judgement in a particular situation would likely make more problems than it solves - and this should be an exceedingly rare situation.

I would elect to put some time back on the clock, I think, even knowing that doing so is not strictly supported by rule. While putting .8 back on the clock might be hosing a team if there was really only .5, putting 0 on the clock when there was really .5 is hosing a team even more.

Hopefully I am never going to be in that position though.

[cdaref]

Originally Posted by rwest

If you have definite knowledge. I have definite knowledge that less than 1 second but more than 0 seconds was left in the game.

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.

[Berkut]

Originally Posted by cdaref

Yeah, but 0.2 or 0.5? Makes a difference.

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.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by Berkut

Rulebook aside

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

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

0.0

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".

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.

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."

[Clark Kent]

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!