End of game situation
 

Theoretical situation. Team A up by 1 point in the closing seconds of the game. Team B with the ball. Team B shoots and scores. Team A requests time out. Official blows whistle granting the time out. Immediately after the whistle sounds, the horn goes off signaling end of game. As the official, since you know your whistle beat the horn, can you put time back on the clock? If so, how much? To make it interesting, clock can only be set in 1-second intervals, no tenths. Discuss among yourselves, then I'll let you know what our interpreter said.

Time can be put back on the clock only if you have definite knowledge of the amount that should be put on. Hopefully you would have looked at the clock to see the amount of time.

In an end of game situation like that, you *have* to know what was on the clock. You see or hear the time out request, your eyes immediately go to the clock as you are blowing your whistle. But if you didn't for whatever reason...

In the OP if I know my whistle beat the horn, step one is to immediately and very forcefully take control of the situation. Let everybody know the game is not over, and that we have a time out. Next, get right with your partner(s) and find out if either glanced at the clock (as well as the normal stuff about whose ball and where it's coming in). If one of them looked at the clock, there's your definite knowledge. If not, you might also canvas your table crew to see if one of them looked at the clock. If not, you've got a problem. You know there was some time on the clock when the whistle sounded, but not how much. Definite knowledge or not, there is no way I'm going to let the clock expire on this. If the clock does not support 10ths of a second, then it's easy, put one second on the clock. Otherwise, I'm going with my best estimate. The only thing I care about in my estimate is whether the remaining time should be more or less than .3 seconds.

If I or my partners did not see the time on the clock, game over.

Well, there are 2 parts to this question - what the rule says, and what your interpreter says. If they are the same, there's no problem. If they are different, then there's also no problem - you do what your interpreter says, even if it's wrong. :)

5-10 pretty much covers this situation: "The referee may correct an obvious mistake by the timer to start or stop the clock properly only when he/she has definite information relative to the time involved. The exact time observed by the official may be placed on the clock." Simply knowing that there was some amount of time in between the whistle and the horn is not the same as "definite information". Definite information can be someone seeing the actual time on the clock, or it can be an official's count of some kind.

I agree with everything BITS says, up to the point where he says, "Otherwise, I'm going with my best estimate". We cannot use an estimate, no matter how much it would seem somewhat fair. Someone on the crew (officiating and table) had better have something better than an estimate. Otherwise, you cannot put a guess back on the clock. Also, if the clock does not show tenths, and you know the display had 0 while the horn had not sounded, then you cannot put 1 second back on because you would be putting back more time than what is allowed.

To quote an old, esteemed member, "Rulz is rulz."

Yep. And definite knowledge is definite knowledge.

The entire discussion is moot, however, if we simply look immediately to the clock when granting the timeout. Mechanics, mechanics, mechanics. :)

Ahh, but what to do if it is one of those clocks that rolls to 0 when 0.9 seconds remain? You see the clock show zero, the horn blows nearly a second after you see the time show 0? Hmmm. :D


I'm with BITS...if my whistle is clearly and distinctly before the horn, I am going to put time back on the clock...no ifs, ands, or buts about it.

Even if I can't see the clock, I have a good enough sense of time to have definite knowledge. You better come up with something....especially if the two (whistle/horn) are not almost simultaneous.

Btw, I agree with BITS too. (Well, at least his statement about this whole discussion is moot if you follow the correct mechanics and actually know how much time is left.) :D

I don't disagree it's real hard to explain to a coach or team that yes, we know the whistle happened first, but since we don't know exactly how much time was left, we can't put any time back on. But that is the rule. We've discussed "fair" before on many different subjects, but it usually boils down to: we can't make things "fair", we can only go with what the rules tell us. Correctable error rules aren't necessarily "fair", but if the crew (officials and table) follow all the correct mechanics, we would not have any correctable errors. The way the blarge is handled may not be "fair", but if officials handled the mechanics correctly, there would be no blarges.

Now can you honestly tell me you know the difference between .9 seconds and .6, for example? What sort of official count are you using? Either way, in the case of a clock that does not show tenths, how can you justify putting 1.0 seconds on the clock when there could actually be .5 left? How is that "fair" to the other team, letting the one team have twice the amount of correct time left, just to put "something" back up?

In other words, what rule or case are you using to put "something" back up?

I'm putting up my "best estimate" if I have to. It's the right thing to do. I am not going to allow a "slow trigger finger" by the timer to end a well contested game. We officials, as a crew, are in charge of this game and we say when it's over, not the timer (who may be caught up watching the game, dropped the control button, morally compromised, or otherwise distracted).

If I know there was time on the clock when I granted the TO, the game is not over. We screwed up by not looking, so now we're going to fix our mistake. Any official who simply would say "We don't have definite knowledge of the time when the whistle blew, game over" is using terrible judgment and IMO is taking the cowardly way out. Not to mention compounding your mistakes.

Just because the rules back you up on something like that doesn't mean it's the right thing to do.

Interesting statement.

How is not following the rules the right thing to do?

I would love hear the discussion with Team B's coach explaining how you came up with your best estimate, especially if that coach knows the rule.

"It's the right thing to do, coach."

Again, if we didn't see the clock, game over.

Actually, the cowardly way out is trying to do something outside the rules just to keep people happy, and make things "fair" in your mind. Yep, the timer might've screwed up by not stopping the clock in time. But the crew also screwed up by not observing exactly how much time was on the clock at the time of the whistle. And the cowardly way is not simply admitting the screwup, but trying to get out of it by doing something specifically not allowed by the rules. And there is no where in the rules or case plays that allow an "estimate" of any kind.

But M&M, it's the right thing to do you coward.

OK, so I'm still early on in my varsity career and I'm going completely off how I would handle this situation vs actual experience. But I'm sticking to my guns on this one. However I'll soften my position a little because I have literally no backup other than what I view as my "moral code"... I'd like to continue the conversation:

So counterpoint, how would you tell the coach, who called the TO, heard your whistle, saw you point to his bench, all before the buzzer, "sorry, game is over"? If it's any kind of competitive game you would have a riot on your hands. How would you handle this if it's the big school state championship game (and replay is not an option, correct?)?

"The timer didn't stop the clock and we (the crew) didn't observe the time on the clock when the whistle blew so without definite knowlege we cannot put time on the clock."

In a big state championship game we may have an alternate ref at the table who we could consult. But I'm thinking that not all 3 officials would fall asleep in a state championship game.

A simple, "coach, I granted the time out with time on the clock. The timer failed to stop the clock at that time so we will be putting time back up." I don't think there would be any argument.

I would hope not but you didn't answer my question. Would you walk off the court in that situation? If you KNEW there was time on the clock when you blew your whistle.

I did answer the question. I put in quotes what I would say if I were the Crew Chief.

I'm not worry about riots. Integrity means doing the right thing even if it not always the best thing. In the long run you'll get more respect for admitting your mistake and applying the rules correctly in the aftermath than if you just wing it to keep everyone happy.

You're putting yourself into a position of having to either lie to the coach or tell him you're guessing. You're right, if he doesn't know any better, he likely won't ask or he'll be satisfied with your answer. If he does know, then you have the two options I presented. Which are you going with?

At this level of game, that's way too much time for this mistake. It wouldn't happen. It's even more important than ever to follow the rules here, though. If you guess 1 second, and the replay later shows .8 seconds when you blew your whistle, you're screwed.

You're probably right. It just makes me squirm thinking about it. I guess I just need to make sure this NEVER happens to me.

A lot of this debate has had to do with seeming errors committed by the timer (for being too slow) and the officials (for not looking at the clock after blowing the whistle).

But in my sitch, there were no errors. The timer responded as quickly as he could once he heard the whistle. Despite his immediate reaction, the horn signaled the end of the period. The officials did look up after blowing the whistle -- they saw 0:00.0. No mistake on anyone's part. But the officials and everyone else knows that the whistle came first followed very shortly by the final horn. There is "definite knowledge" that there was a lag between the whistle and the horn. The unknown is how much of a time difference. So the questions is, can you have definite knowledge without knowing the exact amount of time?

The phrase in the rule is "definite knowledge relative to the time involved."
Without knowing an exact amount, there is no definite knowledge.

If it's so quick that the official looks up immediately and sees zeros, there's nothing that can be done. Up until about 2 years ago, the lag time rule would have ended the game even if the official saw .9 second on the clock anyway.

Yes. I actually can.
Nothing says it has to be an official count. It only says that an official count can be used. If I know, through whatever means, how much time elapsed, I can put it back.

I draw from many, many years of musical training and experience....you get used to subdividing a second into several parts and just knowing how much time has passed.

We don't have to put it all back either. For example, if the whistle sounds then, after a delay, the official looks up to see the clock still running at 1.3 seconds but the clock continues to run out, do you not agree that the official can put 1.3 back on the clock.

As a counter point, what do you do when the clock shows "1" until the buzzer sounds even though there is less than 1 second left. If the official sees "1", the official can put "1"...even though that is really more than should be. How is that any different?

Basically, we have the precision of the clock to work with. You can be no more precise than the clock allows. At any precision, you're still going to be doing some amount of rounding.

Just because the real time falls between the minimum precision of the clock doesn't mean you shouldn't make a correction.

In some cases, yes...but not in this case.

In this case, the amount of time is not limited to what an official sees on the board. Any type of counting the official does on the court is a valid source of definite knowledge.

The cases were you don't need an exact time are those when you have a clock not starting and have a sequence of counts that are not continuous. Example: Throwin...backcourt count for 8 seconds....ball in front court from some time (not closely guarded)...then ball is closely guarded for 3 seconds when the official recognizes that the clock didn't start....you take 11 seconds off. It is definite knowledge since those counts were known. The remainder of the time can not be adjusted unless there is some other form of definite information.

I'm not going to disagree with you, in that I don't know you personally and your particular talents. I know as a whole, most people cannot count in tenth-of-a-second intervals, especially while officiating a very close basketball game. So hopefully you understand my skepticism when I tell you I doubt it, and it sounds like a little bit like justification in trying to put "something" back on the clock.

Through whatever means? Possibly, but guessing and estimating shouldn't be one of those means.

Agreed. But with your talent of counting in tenths, wouldn't you know how much extra to put back on? ;)


It isn't. However, realistically, I cannot remember any scoreboard clocks that do not show tenths that operate in this manner. All of the ones I've been in contact with immediately drop to 7:59 when turned on after starting with an 8:00 minute quarter.

If I made the call at the end of the game..then I already know there aren't tenths on the clock from the previous three buzzers....If I am going to grant a time out..then I have "definate knowledge" that there was 1 second on the clock......whether there was or wasn't....no ifs, ands, or buts....no splitting hairs necessary......whether I actually know or not,there was 1 second..there has to be.....I don't need to ask my partners....i don't need to ask the timer.....I blow the whistle.. I hear the horn...I call the timeout.....I walk over to the timer and tell him to put :01 back on.....go over to the coaches and tell them thats what I saw as i blew the whistle..then meet with my partners to discuss last second coverage...The likelihood of the trailing team scoring is closer to none than even slim and is far surpassed by the fairness of which the situation is handled by putting a full second on the clock....

Wow.

sorry about the harshness...I'm actually very mild mannered...and not nearly as cocky as it may appear in my writing...but if somebody asks me a question...I'll give em my honest answer...my solution here works correctly 99.999% of the time...I will take responsibility for the one time in the several thousand circumstances that it wouldn't. If I have DEFINATE KNOWLEDGE that the whistle beat the horn, then the game can't possibly end.

If the clock doesn't do 10ths of a second, 1 second resolution is the best you've got. So it's 1 second, or 0 seconds. Take your pick. Welcome back to the 1980's.

Can you honestly tell me your arm swing is exactly 5 seconds and not 4.8 or 5.5 seconds? How close to three seconds is your mental "one-thousand-one"? The rules allow for some pretty inaccurate "definite information," giving tacit acknowledgement that "the best we can do" is the best that we've got.

We haven't even addressed the situation where the V team requests the time out and the home scorer lets the clock run out. This doesn't always happen innocently.

I'm going to get both coaches together very briefly, and I am going to tell them what we're going to do. We're not going to discuss how we came to our decision about how much time to put back on the clock.

I am equally screwed if the replay shows there is .8 seconds and my crew ended the game because we didn't know how much time to put on the clock. Sure, we'd be right by rule. But we're still screwed.

Amen, Brother! (Or is it Sister?)

I submit that all of that information contributes to "definite knowledge". You know there was a discernible gap between the whistle and the horn. You know that the time on the clock when the whistle was blown was the amount of time it takes to blow then look. You know the timer reacted immediately, but was unable to stop the clock in time. Put all that together, and you should be able to come to an estimate that is accurate to 1 or 2 10ths, and a heck of a lot more accurate than are allowed when timing something with an arm swing.

Funny how inexact "definite knowledge" can be. ;)

Our interpreter's response...
 

Put one second back on the clock. His position is you have definite knowledge that there is some time left. Since the clock provides no more precision than 1 second, that's what you should go with.

I don't know that he can point to a rule as the basis for this decision, but there it is.

I'm a little confused on how "requesting a time out" is different from "a foul near the end of the game."

And case 5.6.2D (although it complicates the situation a little with subsequent technical fouls) indicates that no time is put back on the clock.

NCAA has a similar interp, except that in games with a monitor, we can put time back based on that review.

Well, in some ways it's not, but in others....
 

If we have a foul at the end of the game and the clock runs out, if it is a shooting foul and the game can be won or tied with the made free throws then the game is not over and we shoot the free throws. If we have definite knowledge we put time back on the clock. If not, shoot the free throws with the lane cleared.

If the coach calls a time out and we grant it prior to the buzzer then we know that the game is not over. We granted the time out before time had expired. How can the game be over?

I suggest there is either a hole in the rules or we have to liberally (I can't believe I'm using the L word!) interpret definite knowledge. The game can't be over and so there must be some time on the clock. How much time I don't know, but the game is not over! It can't be. Put some time up on the clock and finish the game.

The only other solution is to say sorry coach, game over!
What happens if the visiting coach is the one who called time out and the timer let the clock run out knowing the clock doesn't show tenths of seconds? Sorry coach, I don't have definit knowledge how much time was on the clock. So since I don't have definite knowledge, game is over. That's not acceptable.

Well, then I'm taking off my purple leisure suit, putting on my striped shirt with a collar, and declaring the game over because back in the 1980's there was the rule on lag time, where the official was required to allow 1 second to run off because of a timer's reaction time.

I agree, but there is still a difference between "accurate" and "definite", and the rules allow for an official's count, even if it is inaccurate.

Look at case play 5.10.1 Sit. B - The ball is inbounded by A in the backcourt with 12 seconds left, A2 continues to dribble in the backcourt the official loses track of his count, and the clock expires. The ruling is the game is over. How come? If I was to do what's "fair", I would say there should've been a 10-second violation, put 2 seconds on the clock, and give the ball to B for a throw-in. But that is not what happens.

Screwed? Yes in both cases. But I would rather screw up a mechanic than a rule. And putting up time without definite information as provided by the rules would be screwing up a rule.

I understand your thinking. However, how do you explain 5-6-2, Art. 2 & 3?

Not according to the rules. ;)

We need to remember there are "dictionary" definitions and "rule book" definitions. When they don't jibe you go with the rule book definition.

definite means exact by definition!
 

When you blow your whistle and then look up at the clock, there is a slight delay. We never know exactly what time was on the clock. We know what time was on the clock after we blew our whistle. That is the time we use for definite knowledge purposes. If we blow our whistle to grant a time out and then the buzzer sounds, we have definite knowledge that there was time on the clock. However, if the clock doesn't show tenths then we don't know exactly how much time to put on the clock.

For those who suggest we don't put time on the clock, what are you going to do if the clock operator is biased and allows the clock to run out knowing that the clock doesn't show tenths of a second? And also knowing you can't put time on the clock if you don't have definite knowldedge. Sorry coach, you got hosed by the home team clock operator but since I don't have definite knowledge, game over. Now, what happens if this is a state championship?

It could happen!

Agreed.

You tell me - what does rule 5-6-2, Art. 2 & 3 say about that very question?

There isn't a hole in the rules. The rules tell us exactly how to handle the situation. If the officials screw up and do not have definite information, as defined by the rules, then there is nothing, by rule, that can be done.

Moral: Have a count, or look at the clock in these situations. Otherwise, follow the rules. Pretty simple, actually. Whether of not we agree with them.

If you don't think the rules are "fair", then work to be on the committee and change them. Otherwise, it makes it hard for those officials that come in after your game and follow the rules, and all they hear is, "The officials in the last game let us do this..." I don't think it's "fair" that a player and team should be penalized because their AD (or even a secretary) didn't order the proper uniform on time, but I don't get the option of letting it slide this time, because it's just not fair. I get paid to enforce the rules, as written. No more, no less.

Agreed. What's your point here?

Again, can you explain rule 5-6-2 Art. 2 & 3, and how it applies in this very instance?

If it really is a state championship game, what are the odds the home team will supply the clock operator? What are the odds this game will be played in a gym with a clock that does not show tenths? What are the odds the officials will not be good enough to know the proper rules and mechanics to make sure this situation does not occur? What if a meteor hits right at that exact moment? :rolleyes:

Ok,
 

Visitors down by 1 after home team makes a basket. Clock operator is a homer. Visitors call time out and you grant it after time has gone below 1 second but before the buzzer sounds. Clock operator lets the clock run out.

Game over? You heard the request for a time out. You granted it while there still was time on the clock, just not showing on the score board.
You have definite knowledge the game is not over and that time was still on the clock. I have definite knowledge that there was less than 1 second but more than 0 seconds on the clock.

What does the rule book say you should do?

My point is
 

We never have definite knowlegde. Ever!

If you know for sure that the whistle beat the horn how can you not put at least 1 second back on the clock? By the time you looked at the clock there would of been some time run off, as was in this case the ears beat the eyes.

Put time on the clock
 

If you have definite knowledge. I have definite knowledge that less than 1 second but more than 0 seconds was left in the game.

Is that how the rule book defines "definite knowledge"? If so, what rule or case play are you using?

...sigh...

Has anyone looked at rule 5-6-2 yet?

Rule 5-6:
"ART. 2 . . . Each quarter or extra period ends when the signal sounds indicating time has expired."

...trying...hard...not...to...explode...

Oh, what the hell: shut up. :D

I think you misunderstood my response. I'm trying to be careful in my response, because I don't like to question the integrity of other officials. I'm assuming you may have worded it incorrectly or something, but it came across that you'd be willing to say you had definite knowledge when you really didn't. I have a problem with that, and since you seem to value direct responses and honest opinions; there it is.

If I look up and see 1 on the clock, I'll put it up there. If I look up and see 0, there's nothing I can do. Definitely knowledge is the key here, and we don't have it. Definite knowledge, at the minimum, means you have a minimum number to put up on the clock. If, when I blow my whistle, I look up and see the clock running and .8 on the clock as it ticks down, I'll put .8 up even though I know there was more time. I don't know how much more, so I can't put it up there. In this scenario, if I look up and it's already down to 0, I have no knowledge of how much time to put up.

How much time you going to put back on? .2? .3? .4? .5? .6?

Day or night game?

Ok, another example
 

Let's use another example. You call traveling. Let's say it is at the 2:15 mark. However, you didn't check to see if the clock stopped and you don't know the time when you called traveling. You look up at 2:10 and the clock is still running. At 2:05 you get the clock operator to stop the clock. Are you going to put 2:10 on the clock? If so why? Did you have definite knowledge of how much time to put back on the clock? No! You knew that at least 5 seconds had expired but not that 10 seconds had run off. That's not definite knowledge. What are you going to do in this scenario?

Good example. I put back what I know should go back on. I'll set the clock at 2:10 here, because I know at least that much came off. In the OP, I don't "know" what came off after the whistle, so I can't put anything back on.

Different example. Throwin in the backcourt. You glance at the clock just before handing it and see it's at 3:00. Ball is inbounded and there's pressure so you can't look at the clock. Your BC count gets to 8, then he crosses and has a few seconds without any count before a defender approaches. You start a 5 second count and get to 3 before he passes. You look at the clock and it hasn't moved. How much time do you take off?

You mean "what are going to do when we as a crew failed to do our jobs and observe the time on the clock when the whistle blew?"

And reading through a lot these answers some are going to

1. set aside the rule book and make up a time...or...
2. lie to the table personnel and coaches and tell them you observed #.# on the clock. Which means you will also have to evetually lie to your supervisor about the situation.

So to summarize. As a crew all 3 (or 2) officials fail to do their duty and observe the time on the clock when the whistle blew and the way to rectify the situation is to either lie or ignore the rule book.

Where is Nevada when you need him. :eek:

Ah, but you don't have definite knowledge. You know that at least 5 seconds have elapsed, but that's not what "definite" means. It means "exact". You don't have exact knowledge. Therefore, by your interpretation of the rule you can't put 5 seconds back on the clock. I agree with you that's what we should do, but you can't by your interpretation.

By your definition of the word "definite", I don't take any off. But I would take off at least 11 seconds because I know that 8 plus 3 is eleven but I don't know how many seconds elapsed between gaining front court status and starting my 5 second closely guarded count. This is actually a good example that proves my point. If I know that I granted time out before the buzzer sounded, I know that there is some time that should be placed on the clock. I know that there is less than 1 but more than 0 seconds left. In your example we know that at least 11 seconds has elapsed but could be more. So if you say I can't put .4 seconds on the clock in my example because I don't have definite knowledge, neither can you take 11 seconds off for the same reason. You don't have definite knowledge.

Hmm...let me think...how about follow the rules? How about 5-10-1: "The referee may correct an obvious mistake by the timer to start or stop the clock properly only when he/she has definite information relative to the time involved. The exact time observed by the official may be placed on the clock."

So, what happens if an official didn't look at the clock? How about 5-10-2: "If the referee determines that the clock was not started or stopped properly, or if the clock did not run, an official's count or other official information can be used to make a correction".

I've given specific rules and case plays. All you've given are "what if's" and "what's fair". I would be more than willing to listen to your arguments if you can supply some sort of rule backing to your statements.

No, please read the sentence again
 

The crew did not fail to do their job. The clock operator was biased and failed to stop the clock on purpose. We can't see how much time is on the clock because the clock doesn't show tenths of a second. I've never suggested setting aside a rule so please don't accuse me of that. I'm suggesting that if you go by the strick definition of definite, you can never put time on the clock because we never know exactly how much time is on the clock when we blew our whistle. There will always be a lag.

Whatever number you observed on the clock is the number you put up. If the crew is doing its job properly then it wouldn't matter how bias the timer was. You hear/blow the whistle and you immediately glance at the clock, especially in an end-of-game situation.

As I stated earlier, we're talking about "rule book" definition not the dictionary definition.

Rule book vs Dictionary
 

Is the word "definite" defined in the rule book?

I hate to be redundant (inside joke):

This isn't true
 

If I blow my whistle and I look up and the clock shows 0 seconds and then some time later (obviously less than a second) the horn sounds, what are you going to do? It has nothing to do with the crew failing to do their job. And a biased clock operator can have a huge impact on the game.

Ahem, your strawman is burning.

I never defined "definite" the way you say I did. I'm defining it as what I "know" to be true. Your situation is different than the OP in that I watched the clock. My situation is different in that I was able to have a count. You can correct "part" of the mistake if you have knowledge of that portion. Now, in the OP, you don't even have that.

To make the situations more analogous:
1. You call a violation. As you're turning to head the other way, you notice everyone is yelling about the clock. By the time you look up, you see it stopped at 2:05. Both coaches say it ran a few seconds after your whistle, but the timer won't admit it. How much time are you going to put back on?

2. (more likely) 1:00 on the clock, backcourt throwin, no pressure. A1 passes to A2, standing near the division line, who immediately dribbles into the FC where no defender is standing. A is the visiting team and is winning by 5. For whatever reason, B isn't forcing the issue yet. After a few seconds, you hear the V coach complain the clock hasn't started. You had no count, and neither did your partners. Are you taking any time off?

Up until just a couple of years ago, you could do nothing here since there was a 1 second lag time built into the rule. It's normal reaction time, so you can't accuse the time of biased behavior based on a 1 second lag.

The change came, presumably with the increasing ubiquity of the more advanced game clocks that display tenths. If you have a clock that doesn't display tenths, there truly is nothing you can do.

I disagree that "definite" means "exact." I think it means more like "with certainty."

That is, I *know* with certainty that it was 2:10 (in the example). I *know* generally that it was more than that, but since I don't know with certainty, I can't put more time on the clock.

1. clearly defined or determined; not vague or general; fixed; precise; exact: a definite quantity; definite directions.
2. having fixed limits; bounded with precision: a definite area.
3. positive; certain; sure: It is definite that he will take the job.
4. defining; limiting.
5. Botany. (of an inflorescence) determinate.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This seems like a basic debate between two officiating philosophies:

1. The rules are the rules, and should be enforced as written at all times, regardless of the "fairness" of the outcome.

2. The rules are the rules, but they are there to enforce a certain desired outcome (namely a fair match), moreso than on any strict adherence to the letter of the rules, while potentially ignoring the spirit and intent behind the rules.

I am not arguing that one is "right", I can see the arguments for both positions. Personally, I probably lean towards the second position, while understanding the pitfalls involved in it when it comes to consistency and application.

To me though, at the end of the day, it comes down to judgement, and doing what is "right" - and I realize, and accept, that two people can both come to different conclustions about what is right as well.

I don't think the rules should be changed, because changing them to "allow" this kind of judgement in a particular situation would likely make more problems than it solves - and this should be an exceedingly rare situation.

I would elect to put some time back on the clock, I think, even knowing that doing so is not strictly supported by rule. While putting .8 back on the clock might be hosing a team if there was really only .5, putting 0 on the clock when there was really .5 is hosing a team even more.

Hopefully I am never going to be in that position though.

rwest - do you have a rule and case book handy?

No, it's at the house with my bag. I'm familiar with the case book plays you are referring to. I read and study the rulebook and case book every year.

Good. So, why are your posts contrary to those particular rules and case plays?

There you go again, using the dictionary when we are discussing the rule book.

You just don't seem to understand.

As a yellow ball fellow just listening in, I'm quite curious about something in your rulebook. Would someone mind confirming that definite knowledge is or is not defined somewhere in the rulebook. If it is, could someone post a definition.
________
White Widow Seeds

The term used is "definite information". There is a rule's citiation contained within this thread.

Sorry!
 

It seems logical to me to use words as they are defined when another definition is not available. For now on, I'll use words as the person I'm talking to defines them. So please download your dictionary so I can know what you mean by "definite", since I obviously can't use the definition used by billions of people every day. By the way, the word "definite" is not defined in the rule book. That's why I reverted back to the dictionary's definition. But since I'm not allowed to do that, I'll ask the NFHS rules committee to define each and every word they use in their rule book. Look for next's year books to be the size of War and Peace! :)

You do it your way, and the way "the person you're talking to" (namely a coach) wants you to do it.

I'll do it my way. I know my way can be backed by the rule book no matter how unpoplar the outcome is. Good luck explaining your way to a supervisor. ;)

The science of the game vs. the art of the game!

I love it! ;)

Lighten up!
 

I was just having some fun!

Yeah, but 0.2 or 0.5? Makes a difference. I agree with whoever said I dont want to be in this situation, lets make sure we have a look. :) I know that is the easy way out of this one.

I know.

But I wanted the last word. :p

Ok, I'll let you have the last word!
 

lol!

Not really, it's more like the conflict between rules and "common sense." The problem is, "common sense" is not so common and actually differs among most people when it comes to details like this.

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.

That's the problem, we can't nor should we put the rulebook aside, especially in this situation.

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".

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."

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! ;)

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

ART. 1 . . . The referee may correct an obvious mistake by the timer to start or stop the clock properly ...

If you clearly hear the whistle then the horn, there has been an obvious mistake. We no longer have a lag time rule. We are allowed to expect the clock to stop immediately.

... only when he/she has definite information relative to the time involved....

This whole argument boils down to what this phrase means. It's noticeably laced with weasel wording like the undefined "definite information" (which we agree does not equate to "exact information"), "relative" (which implies, but does not define, a relationship between "definite information" and "the time involved"), and "to the time involved" which is not exactly a model of precise language.

This whole sentence is a far cry from something like: "The referee may correct an obvious mistake by the timer to start or stop the clock properly only when he/she knows exactly how much time ran off the clock, or should have run off the clock, while it was not properly started or stopped."

Do you suppose the committee lacked the linguistic skills to craft more precise wording? Or did they purposely introduce ambiguity in order to give the referee some discretion and latitude in how to fix obvious mistakes?

The exact time observed by the official may be placed on the clock.

Notice the word "may". Some of the arguments made so far seem to say that if the exact time wasn't seen, no time can be placed on the clock. Nothing in this rule says that. However, if the exact time is seen, it may be placed on the clock.

ART. 2 . . . If the referee determines that the clock malfunctioned or was not started/stopped properly, or if the clock did not run, an official’s count or other official information may be used to make a correction.

Again, an official's count "may" be used, not "must" be used nor "is the only definite information that may be used," just specifically allowed. And this count not even restricted to a "visual count". A silent count qualifies. Many of us routinely count down the final few seconds in our heads.

Also, what constitutes "other official information"? Is that information from some source officially recognized as official? Is it information obtained from an official? Is an official an official source of official information? Whatever this "official information" is, it is clearly in addition to an official's count.

There's a lot of exceedingly strong arguments being made about exactly what must be present in order to correct the obvious timer's mistake in the OP. But the rule that actually allows the referee to correct such a mistake, well it's not looking so exact to me.

BITS - in any of the language you've read, have you come across anything comparable to: estimate, approximate, something, best guess, etc.?

I know the argument has been made before, but I have read no one in this thread state that we had to know "exactly" how much time to put back on. If you look up and see .8, it's a safe bet that there was at least .9 on there, but you can only put .8 because that's the extent to which you have "definite knowledge relative to the time involved."

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.

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?

No more than you or I.

Can I get that at Honig's? :D

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.

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.

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. :)