End of game situation

[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.

[mbyron]

BITS is right. Indeed, one gym near me has hundreths of a second showing under a minute!

Barring replay showing tenths, I would endorse the ruling that "definite" does not require "exact" (whatever that comes to). Sure, that will involve officials' judgment about how much time to put up. What's the fairer alternative?

[bob jenkins]

We had this play in my game Tues night:

Foul in the last minute of the quarter. Some "skirmishing" after the whistle. By the time anyone could look at the clock, it read 13.1 and was still running. By the time we could get it stopped, it read 10.something.

Clearly, and by common sense, the foul happened with more than 13.1 left. But, what could we put on the clock?

Why is it different if it's 3.1 or 1.31 or .31 left when you notice the clock?

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

We had this play in my game Tues night:

Foul in the last minute of the quarter. Some "skirmishing" after the whistle. By the time anyone could look at the clock, it read 13.1 and was still running. By the time we could get it stopped, it read 10.something.

Clearly, and by common sense, the foul happened with more than 13.1 left. But, what could we put on the clock?

Why is it different if it's 3.1 or 1.31 or .31 left when you notice the clock?

There is a big difference in the OP and in this situation. In the OP you've instant recognition that the clock did not stop, and instant recognition that that very brief interval between whistle and horn is significant. And you've got quite a lot of additional objective information that all corroborates the elapsed time being only a small fraction of a second.

In your situation, you have additional, unusual activity that required your full attention between the whistle and the recognition that the clock did not stop. You also have a period of time that cannot be reliably estimated any closer than "a few seconds". You have not indicated any "other official information" that would help. So what can you do? Put up 13.1 and go with it. It's what I would do, and what I would argue that any of us should do.

BTW, I have never argued that we should make a "wild guess". I have not suggested we use a "rough estimate". If you have no definite information, you cannot make it up. In most cases, I don't believe we can do any better than the time observed plus/minus an official's count. The OP is a pretty unique situation with a very high probability that a well-informed estimate would be right to within 1/10 of a second.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

BTW, I have never argued that we should make a "wild guess". I have not suggested we use a "rough estimate". If you have no definite information, you cannot make it up. In most cases, I don't believe we can do any better than the time observed plus/minus an official's count. The OP is a pretty unique situation with a very high probability that a well-informed estimate would be right to within 1/10 of a second.

I will add that this year's interps contain "the opposite" play where the clock does not start. The official is directed to take some time off, even though s/he has no direct knowledge of how much time should have been used.

[Clark Kent]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

We had this play in my game Tues night:

Foul in the last minute of the quarter. Some "skirmishing" after the whistle. By the time anyone could look at the clock, it read 13.1 and was still running. By the time we could get it stopped, it read 10.something.

Clearly, and by common sense, the foul happened with more than 13.1 left. But, what could we put on the clock?

Why is it different if it's 3.1 or 1.31 or .31 left when you notice the clock?

What if it were the same situation as above but the "skirmish" took a lot more attention to settle down and before you and your partner knew you heard the horn. Game over?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Clark Kent

What if it were the same situation as above but the "skirmish" took a lot more attention to settle down and before you and your partner knew you heard the horn. Game over?

Both or all 3 refs should not be in the middle of the fray. One official should always be standing back observing, which would include the time on clock.

[Clark Kent]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Both or all 3 refs should not be in the middle of the fray. One official should always be standing back observing, which would include the time on clock.

I think we are all concur that looking at the clock simply by one of the officials constitutes enabling the clock to have time awarded to it. But in this situation at the end of a reasonably close game with you and your partner both focussing on the "skirmish more than the clock (which I think my assignor would prefer) let the game end?

[youngump]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

We had this play in my game Tues night:

Foul in the last minute of the quarter. Some "skirmishing" after the whistle. By the time anyone could look at the clock, it read 13.1 and was still running. By the time we could get it stopped, it read 10.something.

Clearly, and by common sense, the foul happened with more than 13.1 left. But, what could we put on the clock?

Why is it different if it's 3.1 or 1.31 or .31 left when you notice the clock?

You put 14.1 on the clock right? Because you had definite information that the skirmishing lasted longer than one second and you saw 13.1 left. You added those two to get 14.1. I don't mean that flippantly, I just am trying to understand how you can say you only had definite information of the 13.1; if they pushed and shoved for a few seconds you could be sure it was at least 1 (maybe even at least 2 --depending on what you had definite knowledge of) and it seems you should give those seconds as well.
________
The Sanctuary of Truth Wong Amat