New Interpretation Regarding "Definite Knowledge"

[CMHCoachNRef]

Originally Posted by just another ref

So, perhaps a rewrite is in order here.

The official may correct an obvious mistake by the timer to start or stop the clock. Definite knowledge, such as an official's count, or an observation of the clock at a significant point by a reliable source, shall be used if available. If not, officials should confer and reach their best estimate.

I would agree. Based on the fact that a player can only make a tap with :00.3 or less left in a quarter, it should follow that the rule be changed to indicate that :00.2 be taken off of the clock in this situation, BUT only if the inbound spot is no longer along the endline (baseline for you coaches, players and spectators out there). If the throw-in remains on the endline, NO TIME should be removed from the clock AND the throw-in team shall retain the ability to run the endline.

This would seem to be consistent and fair to all.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by CMHCoachNRef

If the throw-in remains on the endline, NO TIME should be removed from the clock AND the throw-in team shall retain the ability to run the endline.

This would seem to be consistent and fair to all.

But, wouldn't this be a "do-over"? And, hasn't the committee said that there should never be any do-overs? The timer screwed up by starting the clock too early, but at the same time, if it had been done correctly some time would be taken off once the TI is touched inbounds.

While I understand the concept of wanting to be "fair" for all, I wonder if the committee purposely does not make correcting an error totally fair? Iow, maybe they purposely make the correction of an error correct by rule, but not necessarily fair, in order to give us (officials and table crew) incentive to get it right the first time? If we screw up, someone gets screwed - that's just the way it is. That's the case in this instance - one team, or perhaps both, are going to be at a disadvantage because the officials made a mistake. Maybe team A gets screwed because now they have to take the ball OOB back on the endline with less time on the clock. Maybe team B gets screwed because now team A sees what defense they're using and can adjust. But the rules involving timing are properly followed when we correct the error, and if we try to make it "fair", some rule would have to be set aside.

The rules, as written, are fair to both teams as long they are followed during the game. If the officials mess it up, then the rules still need to be followed. If we don't like how the rules are written in the case of an official's mistake, then maybe we should try harder to not make those mistakes? Maybe that was the intent of the committee, not simply to make it fair in case we screw up.

[Anchor]

To catch the ball requires .3 seconds. That is definite knowledge. If it is caught in bounds reset the clock so that it reflects the loss of .3 seconds. If it is merely tapped, reset reflecting .2 or less. That some time has expired is definite knowledge, and the minimum amount is definite knowledge. Worse case scenario somebody loses a 10th of a second. In anybody's book the tenth is a negligible amount.

[Adam]

Actually, it takes .3 seconds to catch and shoot. Do we really know how long it takes to simply "catch" the ball?

[tjones1]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Actually, it takes .3 seconds to catch and shoot. Do we really know how long it takes to simply "catch" the ball?

I don't believe so... I've never seen anything released stating how long it takes to just catch the ball.

[tjones1]

Originally Posted by Anchor

To catch the ball requires .3 seconds. That is definite knowledge. If it is caught in bounds reset the clock so that it reflects the loss of .3 seconds. If it is merely tapped, reset reflecting .2 or less. That some time has expired is definite knowledge, and the minimum amount is definite knowledge. Worse case scenario somebody loses a 10th of a second. In anybody's book the tenth is a negligible amount.

What's the difference if it was caught or tapped? The clock should have started as soon as the ball was touched. In both situations, I would say you take the same amount of time off the clock regardless if it was caught or tapped.

[Anchor]

Originally Posted by tjones1

What's the difference if it was caught or tapped? The clock should have started as soon as the ball was touched. In both situations, I would say you take the same amount of time off the clock regardless if it was caught or tapped.

The assumption has to be that something was done with the ball when it was caught in bounds. The point of .3 is that a person cannot catch a ball and begin anything (shooting, throwing, dribbling, etc.) utilizing less than .3 seconds. Hence, if they caught the ball, .3. I would have no issue with assessing .3 for a tap either.

Granting benefit of the doubt, and having to assume that the ref caught the mistake at the moment the ball was touched, I suppose that a very good clock operator could actually turn the clock on and off in less than .3 seconds. Even with precision timing and 2 officials working on synchronization I doubt many could do it in less than .2 seconds.

The only one thing we absolutely do know is that some time went off the clock. I'm simply suggesting how these assumed tenths can be assessed without merely guessing. Again, 1/10th of a second is negligible in anyone's book.

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Actually, it takes .3 seconds to catch and shoot. Do we really know how long it takes to simply "catch" the ball?

I thought it took longer than .3 seconds to catch and shoot, thus the current rule states that with .3 or fewer seconds remaining only a tap can score? Assuming that is correct (and I acknowledge that this value is something of an average, etc.), I can get behind taking .2 seconds off the clock based on the logic that the smallest amount of time in which you can "legally" catch and shoot is .4 seconds, figure half of that is catch and half is shoot. It may not be accurate, but it's agreeably logical.