New Interpretation Regarding "Definite Knowledge"

[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.

[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.

[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.