End of game situation

[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!

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by rwest

I was just having some fun!

I know.

But I wanted the last word.

[rwest]

Originally Posted by badnewsref

i know.

But i wanted the last word.

lol!

[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.?

[Adam]

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."

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by 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.?

Yes. "An official's count". An official's count is not only comparable to "estimate, approximate, something, best guess," it is an approximation, it is an estimate, and it is a best guess. And, as has been pointed out, while the information gathered from an official's count it isn't exact, it is definite.

Here's the definite information, relative to the time involved I possess from this situation:
* The whistle clearly came before the horn
* The granting of the time out came before the whistle
* The official immediately looked to the clock after blowing the whistle
* The official observed 0.0 on the clock
* There was more than 0.0 when the whistle sounded
* It takes some amount of time to turn and tilt your head to look at the clock
* The amount of time required to turn and tilt one's head is definitely less than the time required for a player to catch and shoot.
* We have some other official information about how long it takes to catch and shoot.

Would you argue the definiteness of any of that information? I don't need an exact amount, though if I have it I can use it. I need "definite information relative to the time involved." And I feel that I have enough definite information to put time back on the clock. It may not be exact, but like the good old five second count, it's exact enough.

[Back In The Saddle]

One additional question...

What if my partner had a count going for some reason (maybe he's a little eager with the throw-in count)? I then have everything I had before as relates to definite knowledge, but I've also got an official's count.

Can I put time back on the clock now? If not, why not? If so, how much?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

One additional question...

What if my partner had a count going for some reason (maybe he's a little eager with the throw-in count)? I then have everything I had before as relates to definite knowledge, but I've also got an official's count.

Can I put time back on the clock now? If not, why not? If so, how much?

Is your partner a metro-gnome?

[Back In The Saddle]

No more than you or I.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Is your partner a metro-gnome?