End of game situation

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Is your partner a metro-gnome?

[Back In The Saddle]

Can I get that at Honig's?

[M&M Guy]

BITS, maybe I should've been a little more specific - are there any specific words used in the rules, under the section on correcting timing mistakes, having to do with approximate, guess, etc.? No, of course not.

And, yes, I agree with you that an official's count is not exact. However, as Bob pointed out a while back, "definite information" is not the same as "exact". Isn't there a case play somewhere that had the play where A1 is dribbling in the backcourt after a throw-in, more than 10 seconds runs off the clock, but because the official's count was still at 9, there is no violation?

To me, case play 5.10.1 Sit B is very interesting, and gives a pretty good idea of what the committee feels is definite information: "Team A leads by one point when they inbound the ball in their backcourt with 12 seconds remaining in the fourth quarter. A1's throw-in pass is to A2, who dribbles in the backcourt until the horn sounds. The trail official does not make a 10-second call because he/she "lost" the count. RULING: The game is over. The clock may not be reset because there are no rule provisions to do this. If the count was not accurate, or not made, it cannot be corrected. There is no provision of an error made in the official's accuracy in counting seconds".

Think about that play. How many of us would use "definite information" to go back, know we should've had a 10-second violation, put 2 seconds back on the clock, and give it to B for a throw-in? But we cannot do that. We know definitely that is what should've happened, but it is not "definite information" as per the rules. The only provisions for correcting a timing error is by an official seeing a specific time on the clock, or by an official count, whether visible or internal.

This play is also another example of my theory about nothing good coming from an official's screw-up. We can't make it "fair", we can only do what the rules tell us. Bottom line: don't screw up, and you won't have to use these stupid rulings.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

BITS, maybe I should've been a little more specific - are there any specific words used in the rules, under the section on correcting timing mistakes, having to do with approximate, guess, etc.? No, of course not.

And, yes, I agree with you that an official's count is not exact. However, as Bob pointed out a while back, "definite information" is not the same as "exact". Isn't there a case play somewhere that had the play where A1 is dribbling in the backcourt after a throw-in, more than 10 seconds runs off the clock, but because the official's count was still at 9, there is no violation?

To me, case play 5.10.1 Sit B is very interesting, and gives a pretty good idea of what the committee feels is definite information: "Team A leads by one point when they inbound the ball in their backcourt with 12 seconds remaining in the fourth quarter. A1's throw-in pass is to A2, who dribbles in the backcourt until the horn sounds. The trail official does not make a 10-second call because he/she "lost" the count. RULING: The game is over. The clock may not be reset because there are no rule provisions to do this. If the count was not accurate, or not made, it cannot be corrected. There is no provision of an error made in the official's accuracy in counting seconds".

Think about that play. How many of us would use "definite information" to go back, know we should've had a 10-second violation, put 2 seconds back on the clock, and give it to B for a throw-in? But we cannot do that. We know definitely that is what should've happened, but it is not "definite information" as per the rules. The only provisions for correcting a timing error is by an official seeing a specific time on the clock, or by an official count, whether visible or internal.

This play is also another example of my theory about nothing good coming from an official's screw-up. We can't make it "fair", we can only do what the rules tell us. Bottom line: don't screw up, and you won't have to use these stupid rulings.

So, what you're saying is that no matter what an official's count is or how accurate it is, it is considered to be official...that while any count is really only an approximation it is still official. Therefore, if an official has a "count" of the final fractions of a second, it is official and adequate, even though it may not be accurate/precise. Therefore, if an official deems that 0.4 seconds elapsed through a mental count, then that information is definite knowledge and can/shall be used to put 0.4 seconds back on the clock.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

So, what you're saying is that no matter what an official's count is or how accurate it is, it is considered to be official...that while the count is really only an approximation but it is still official.

I'm not saying it, but the rules are.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Therefore, if an official has a "count" of the final fractions of a second, it is official and adequate, even though it may not be accurate/precise. Therefore, if an official deems that 0.4 seconds elapsed through a mental count, then that information is definite knowledge and can/shall be used to put 0.4 seconds back on the clock.

Let's see...backcourt count is done in 1-sec. intervals. Closely-guarded count is done in 1-sec. intervals. Throw-in count is done in 1-sec. intervals. 3-sec. count is done in...hmm...1-sec. intervals. (I see a pattern developing...) All of these counts can be done verbally and visibly (although the 3-sec. count should not be done that way).

I can't wait to see you post on YouTube your tenth-of-a-second verbal and visible count, to verify that you can, indeed, count that way. In the meantime, nice try.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

I'm not saying it, but the rules are.


Let's see...backcourt count is done in 1-sec. intervals. Closely-guarded count is done in 1-sec. intervals. Throw-in count is done in 1-sec. intervals. 3-sec. count is done in...hmm...1-sec. intervals. (I see a pattern developing...) All of these counts can be done verbally and visibly (although the 3-sec. count should not be done that way).

I can't wait to see you post on YouTube your tenth-of-a-second verbal and visible count, to verify that you can, indeed, count that way. In the meantime, nice try.

Yet, the arm motion is an in/out motion...each taking a half second...hmmm.

And if you, with a fairly even cadence, count with "one-thou-sand-one-one-thous-and-two-one-thou-sand-three" you have quarter seconds right there....not so hard. Or from the musical realm...1-e-and-ah-2-e-and-ah...which is a bit easier to have an even cadence with.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Yet, the arm motion is an in/out motion...each taking a half second...hmmm.

And if you, with a fairly even cadence, count with "one-thou-sand-one-one-thous-and-two-one-thou-sand-three" you have quarter seconds right there....not so hard. Or from the musical realm...1-e-and-ah-2-e-and-ah...which is a bit easier to have an even cadence with.

Cool, you've given me half and quarter second intervals. So you admit getting to a specific tenth would still be an estimate, based on your half or quarter second counts? Again, how do you tell the difference between .03 and .04, which would make a big difference at the end of a close game?

Camron, I don't disagree it "feels right" to put "something" back on the clock. And, probably most times, no one would argue with you, because no one will know the rule specifics. But that still doesn't make it correct under the current rules. And I would rather take the chance of someone challenging my ruling, because it can be backed up by written rule, rather than being challenged on your method, which cannot be backed by rule without a leap or two of logic.

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Yet, the arm motion is an in/out motion...each taking a half second...hmmm.

And if you, with a fairly even cadence, count with "one-thou-sand-one-one-thous-and-two-one-thou-sand-three" you have quarter seconds right there....not so hard. Or from the musical realm...1-e-and-ah-2-e-and-ah...which is a bit easier to have an even cadence with.

Go with that timeless classic "one-mis-sis-sip-pi, two-mis-sis-sip-pi, ..." and you're down to 1/5 second timing.

[RookieDude]

If I may chime in late...

There is an interesting dilemma here.

The folks that want to pitch their tent in the game ending camp are stuck.

They TRULY believe the rules back their assertions that even though common sense says there "should be time" left on the clock (because of the whistle before the horn) they can not put time back on the clock because they TRULY believe there is NO provisions in the rules.

These officials would definitely be putting aside a rule, in their minds, if they did anything else but end the game.

Too bad...because you see, us fat dumb and happy officials who see the rule differently...can, with good conscious...put time back on the clock. (For the reasons so eloquently elaborated on in previous posts)

In our "fat" camp...we have NOT put aside a rule (in our minds) and therefore, can not be chastised by any of the true rule purists.

We are happy with our ruling, the coaches WILL be happy with our ruling, the players are happy with our ruling, the fans are happy with our ruling, even our assignor is happy with our ruling. Everybody is happy, except the miserable officials that truly believe the rule says you can not put time back on the clock.

Sometimes...ignorance is truly bliss.

[rwest]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

BITS, maybe I should've been a little more specific - are there any specific words used in the rules, under the section on correcting timing mistakes, having to do with approximate, guess, etc.? No, of course not.

And, yes, I agree with you that an official's count is not exact. However, as Bob pointed out a while back, "definite information" is not the same as "exact". Isn't there a case play somewhere that had the play where A1 is dribbling in the backcourt after a throw-in, more than 10 seconds runs off the clock, but because the official's count was still at 9, there is no violation?

To me, case play 5.10.1 Sit B is very interesting, and gives a pretty good idea of what the committee feels is definite information: "Team A leads by one point when they inbound the ball in their backcourt with 12 seconds remaining in the fourth quarter. A1's throw-in pass is to A2, who dribbles in the backcourt until the horn sounds. The trail official does not make a 10-second call because he/she "lost" the count. RULING: The game is over. The clock may not be reset because there are no rule provisions to do this. If the count was not accurate, or not made, it cannot be corrected. There is no provision of an error made in the official's accuracy in counting seconds".

Think about that play. How many of us would use "definite information" to go back, know we should've had a 10-second violation, put 2 seconds back on the clock, and give it to B for a throw-in? But we cannot do that. We know definitely that is what should've happened, but it is not "definite information" as per the rules. The only provisions for correcting a timing error is by an official seeing a specific time on the clock, or by an official count, whether visible or internal.

This play is also another example of my theory about nothing good coming from an official's screw-up. We can't make it "fair", we can only do what the rules tell us. Bottom line: don't screw up, and you won't have to use these stupid rulings.

In the case play you sited, the clock was started properly. There is no timing mistake on the part of the clock operator. There is no rule support for correcting an official's timing mistake. And for good reason. We don't want to open a can of worms by forcing the officials to be more accurate with their timing. Can you imagine the pain it would cause?!?!?!? In the OP the clock operator didn't stop the clock in time. So we can put time back on the clock in this scenario. Big difference.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by rwest

In the case play you sited, the clock was started properly. There is no timing mistake on the part of the clock operator. There is no rule support for correcting an official's timing mistake. And for good reason. We don't want to open a can of worms by forcing the officials to be more accurate with their timing. Can you imagine the pain it would cause?!?!?!? In the OP the clock operator didn't stop the clock in time. So we can put time back on the clock in this scenario. Big difference.

If you have definite knowledge of how much time to put back on, you're right. If Camron has a mental count going indicating quarter seconds, he can put it back on. But the scenario being played here has no such animal, no official had a mental count going in any intervals.

Without a count of some sort, you have no basis for putting time back on. We may not have a precise definition of "definite knowledge," but I'm going to stick my neck out and say one thing it definitively cannot mean is "best guess."

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by rwest

In the case play you sited, the clock was started properly. There is no timing mistake on the part of the clock operator. There is no rule support for correcting an official's timing mistake. And for good reason. We don't want to open a can of worms by forcing the officials to be more accurate with their timing. Can you imagine the pain it would cause?!?!?!? In the OP the clock operator didn't stop the clock in time. So we can put time back on the clock in this scenario. Big difference.

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

If you have definite knowledge of how much time to put back on, you're right. If Camron has a mental count going indicating quarter seconds, he can put it back on. But the scenario being played here has no such animal, no official had a mental count going in any intervals.

Without a count of some sort, you have no basis for putting time back on. We may not have a precise definition of "definite knowledge," but I'm going to stick my neck out and say one thing it definitively cannot mean is "best guess."

Yep, the important thing is that you have some sort of measurement of time to fall back on.

I had a game in which we were having clock problems the entire 1st quarter. With about 8 seconds left Team A had throw-in under its own basket. The ball was passed to A1 in the corner who then proceeded to drive to the basket. I notice the clock hadn't started so I started a mental count b/c I didn't want to interrupt the play to the basket. A1 missed the lay-up which was followed by a missed tap then a scamble for the ball. By the time I reached 1-thousand-8 in my head A2 had retrieved the ball near the 3-point line and started gathering himself for a jump shot. Clock had still not started. I blew my whistle and killed the action followed by A2 releasing the shot.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Yep, the important thing is that you have some sort of measurement of time to fall back on.

I had a game in which we were having clock problems the entire 1st quarter. With about 8 seconds left Team A had throw-in under its own basket. The ball was passed to A1 in the corner who then proceeded to drive to the basket. I notice the clock hadn't started so I started a mental count b/c I didn't want to interrupt the play to the basket. A1 missed the lay-up which was followed by a missed tap then a scamble for the ball. By the time I reached 1-thousand-8 in my head A2 had retrieved the ball near the 3-point line and started gathering himself for a jump shot. Clock had still not started. I blew my whistle and killed the action followed by A2 releasing the shot.

I did that to end the 2nd quarter of my first varsity game in my previous association. I'd been put on the game with our board president since I was new to the area. I was T for a BC throwin and noticed the clock didn't start (5 seconds left). A passed too much and never got off a shot, no one complained when I killed it and called the quarter.

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

If you have definite knowledge of how much time to put back on definite information relative to the time involved, you're right. If Camron has a mental count going indicating quarter seconds, he can put it back on. But the scenario being played here has no such animal, no official had a mental count going in any intervals.

Without a count of some sort, you have no basis for putting time back on. We may not have a precise definition of "definite knowledge," but I'm going to stick my neck out and say one thing it definitively cannot mean is "best guess." Unless you're talking about an official's count, which is just a way of using muscle memory to come up with a ... wait for it ... "best guess."

Fixed it for you.

[Adam]

It may be a "best guess", but it's one based on concrete information. As opposed to "well, there's got to be some time on there."
We're talking about a situation that up until a couple of years ago was not correctable by rule.