End of game situation

[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?

[Back In The Saddle]

Can I get that at Honig's?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

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.

Just as long as you can explain it to the coaches and your supervisors you're good.

Me, I have some anal supervisors, they are going to want us to justify why we put up a specific amount of time.

[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.

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Just as long as you can explain it to the coaches and your supervisors you're good.

Me, I have some anal supervisors, they are going to want us to justify why we put up a specific amount of time.

Yep, you gotta keep the boss happy. Coaches, they're not expected to be happy. But like I mentioned above, I'm not going to volunteer how I came up with the amount of time I'll put on the clock. I'm going to instruct the clock operator how much time to put on the clock. I'm going to tell the coaches what we're going to do. Then we're going to resume play after the time out.

[Clark Kent]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

Yep, you gotta keep the boss happy. Coaches, they're not expected to be happy. But like I mentioned above, I'm not going to volunteer how I came up with the amount of time I'll put on the clock. I'm going to instruct the clock operator how much time to put on the clock. I'm going to tell the coaches what we're going to do. Then we're going to resume play after the time out.

So I'm curious (I haven't finalized my opinion on which is the right thing to do yet) how much time would you put on the clock? Would you go with .4 to make things interesting or .2 and see if the miracle shot could make it on youtube?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

Yep, you gotta keep the boss happy. Coaches, they're not expected to be happy. But like I mentioned above, I'm not going to volunteer how I came up with the amount of time I'll put on the clock. I'm going to instruct the clock operator how much time to put on the clock. I'm going to tell the coaches what we're going to do. Then we're going to resume play after the time out.

You're putting yourself into a potential dilemma here, should the coach actually know the rule and ask you how you came up with the time you chose.

"Coach, it's my best guess."
"Coach, I know because the little gnome in my head told me."

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by Clark Kent

So I'm curious (I haven't finalized my opinion on which is the right thing to do yet) how much time would you put on the clock? Would you go with .4 to make things interesting or .2 and see if the miracle shot could make it on youtube?

The time required to turn your head to look at the clock is less than it takes to catch and shoot, which we are told is greater than .3 seconds. I do realize > .3 is an average of sorts, but it's an official average. I'm probably going with .2 seconds. But anywhere from .1 to .3 would produce the same result, only a tap can score. The teams will draw up the same plays in their huddles regardless of .1, .2 or .3. That is why I'm not too worried about the exact amount on this play.

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

You're putting yourself into a potential dilemma here, should the coach actually know the rule and ask you how you came up with the time you chose.

"Coach, it's my best guess."
"Coach, I know because the little gnome in my head told me."

You are right, there is some risk. If forced, I'd probably give my reasoning as explained above. Followed by, "That's what we're going with. Let's get ready."