End of game situation

[Back In The Saddle]

Snaqs brings up a valid point. 1/10 second precision is a relatively recent addition. The rule allowing us to put exactly the time observed back on the clock is only a couple of years old. The .3 seconds rule isn't much older than that. We're slowly breaking new ground, slowly figuring it out. But we cannot possibly be done, this thing is still broken.

The current rule about "fixing" the clock is ... charming. Eccentric. Like that weird aunt your mother never invites to dinner. It falls somewhere between uselessly ambiguous and suitably vague, depending upon your intentions. Mostly, it cannot decide which century it wants to be in.

One foot is firmly rooted in the wildly popular 20th century. When the finest granularity you had was a single second, any means of measuring time that was accurate to the nearest second was accurate enough. The official's count, fit the bill.

It's other foot is burrowing into the 21st century. Since we now commonly display and utilize tenths of a second, it makes sense to allow us to put the observed time back on the clock, down to the tenth of a second.

The rule happily embraces both paradigms. We allow a source of "definite information" that can be off by as much as 20%, and we embrace the observation of time accurate to the tenth of a second. But wait, there's more...

We're also specifically allowed to use "other official information". We're just not told what that means. But then, we're not told what excludes either. Except curiously we're told we absolutely cannot use the monitor. The single most accurate potential source of "definite information" is verboten, forbidden, off limits.

What amuses me about this whole debate, is that people are SERIOUSLY arguing about whether we can adjust the clock by a couple tenths of a second based on a clearly reasonable estimate when the rules freely allow adjustments of many seconds based on a source of information we all acknowledge is wildly inaccurate. It makes no sense.

If I put .2 seconds back on the clock in my game based on an estimate of how much time elapsed in the OP, and you take 10 seconds off the clock in your game based on your 10 second count, and our assigner reviews both tapes with a stopwatch...which of us is really guessing? Whose estimate is going to be more inaccurate?

You know I'm right.

The problem here, is the rule. It's ambiguous, it's all over the map, it allows 1/10 second accuracy while encouraging multiple second inaccuracy. It cannot make up it's mind about how good is good enough. It's busted.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

We allow a source of "definite information" that can be off by as much as 20%, and we embrace the observation of time accurate to the tenth of a second.

I'm an environmental chemical analyst. In analyzing samples, for every twenty samples in a batch we have to randomly select sample for a duplicate analysis. If the results of the actual sample and the "rep" (replicate, or duplicate) are the same, this is one way for us to confirm that our reagents, equipment, instruments, procedures, etc. are working properly, and we can then, and only then, proceed to report the results of all twenty samples in that particular batch to our clients. In our industry, if we get a "rep" result that is 20% or less, or 20% or more, than our actual sample, it is considered that we have successfully duplicated the result, and the batch of twenty samples successfully passes. I happen to work with an instrument that measures accurately down to one milligram per liter (one part per million). The minimum detectable level of my instrument is 0.02 milligram per liter (0.02 parts per million).

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I'm an environmental chemical analyst. In analyzing samples, for every twenty samples in a batch we have to randomly select sample for a duplicate analysis. If the results of the actual sample and the "rep" (replicate, or duplicate) are the same, this is one way for us to confirm that our reagents, equipment, instruments, procedures, etc. are working properly, and we can then, and only then, proceed to report the results of all twenty samples in that particular batch to our clients. In our industry, if we get a "rep" result that is 20% or less, or 20% or more, than our actual sample, it is considered that we have successfully duplicated the result, and the batch of twenty samples successfully passes. I happen to work with an instrument that measures accurately down to one milligram per liter (one part per million). The minimum detectable level of my instrument is 0.02 milligram per liter (0.02 parts per million).

In my high school science classes I was taught that the result of any calculation is only as precise as the least precise factor used. So if you have two weights, one measured in 10ths of a gram and the other in grams, no matter how certain you are of the first measurement, the result must be rounded to the nearest gram.

So what are we saying when we allow both 1/10 second precision and also nearest second (roughly) accuracy?