End of game situation

[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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by rwest

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.



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.

Ahem, your strawman is burning.

I never defined "definite" the way you say I did. I'm defining it as what I "know" to be true. Your situation is different than the OP in that I watched the clock. My situation is different in that I was able to have a count. You can correct "part" of the mistake if you have knowledge of that portion. Now, in the OP, you don't even have that.

To make the situations more analogous:
1. You call a violation. As you're turning to head the other way, you notice everyone is yelling about the clock. By the time you look up, you see it stopped at 2:05. Both coaches say it ran a few seconds after your whistle, but the timer won't admit it. How much time are you going to put back on?

2. (more likely) 1:00 on the clock, backcourt throwin, no pressure. A1 passes to A2, standing near the division line, who immediately dribbles into the FC where no defender is standing. A is the visiting team and is winning by 5. For whatever reason, B isn't forcing the issue yet. After a few seconds, you hear the V coach complain the clock hasn't started. You had no count, and neither did your partners. Are you taking any time off?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by rwest

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".

I disagree that "definite" means "exact." I think it means more like "with certainty."

That is, I *know* with certainty that it was 2:10 (in the example). I *know* generally that it was more than that, but since I don't know with certainty, I can't put more time on the clock.

[rwest]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

I disagree that "definite" means "exact." I think it means more like "with certainty."

That is, I *know* with certainty that it was 2:10 (in the example). I *know* generally that it was more than that, but since I don't know with certainty, I can't put more time on the clock.

1. clearly defined or determined; not vague or general; fixed; precise; exact: a definite quantity; definite directions.
2. having fixed limits; bounded with precision: a definite area.
3. positive; certain; sure: It is definite that he will take the job.
4. defining; limiting.
5. Botany. (of an inflorescence) determinate.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by rwest

1. clearly defined or determined; not vague or general; fixed; precise; exact: a definite quantity; definite directions.
2. having fixed limits; bounded with precision: a definite area.
3. positive; certain; sure: It is definite that he will take the job.
4. defining; limiting.
5. Botany. (of an inflorescence) determinate.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There you go again, using the dictionary when we are discussing the rule book.

You just don't seem to understand.

[youngump]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

There you go again, using the dictionary when we are discussing the rule book.

You just don't seem to understand.

As a yellow ball fellow just listening in, I'm quite curious about something in your rulebook. Would someone mind confirming that definite knowledge is or is not defined somewhere in the rulebook. If it is, could someone post a definition.
________
White Widow Seeds

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by youngump

As a yellow ball fellow just listening in, I'm quite curious about something in your rulebook. Would someone mind confirming that definite knowledge is or is not defined somewhere in the rulebook. If it is, could someone post a definition.

The term used is "definite information". There is a rule's citiation contained within this thread.

[rwest]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

There you go again, using the dictionary when we are discussing the rule book.

You just don't seem to understand.

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!

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by rwest

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.

[rwest]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

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.

I was just having some fun!

[Clark Kent]

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

I love it!

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Clark Kent

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

I love it!

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.

[Back In The Saddle]

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.

[M&M Guy]

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