End of game situation

[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.

[M&M Guy]

rwest - do you have a rule and case book handy?

[rwest]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

rwest - do you have a rule and case book handy?

No, it's at the house with my bag. I'm familiar with the case book plays you are referring to. I read and study the rulebook and case book every year.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by rwest

No, it's at the house with my bag. I'm familiar with the case book plays you are referring to. I read and study the rulebook and case book every year.

Good. So, why are your posts contrary to those particular rules and case plays?