End of game situation

[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!

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Berkut

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.

We also know it makes a difference whether you put on 0.3 or 0.4.