New Interpretation Regarding "Definite Knowledge"
 

From 2009-2010 NFHS Basketball Rules Interpretations:
---
Situation 11: Team B scores a goal to take the lead by one point. A1 immediately requests and is granted a timeout with three seconds remaining in the fourth quarter. Following the timeout, Team A is awarded the ball for a throw-in from anywhere along the end line. A1 passes the ball to A2, who is also outside the boundary; A2 passes the ball to A1 who is inbounds and running the length of the court. The timer mistakenly starts the clock when A2 touches A1's pass while standing outside the boundary. An official notices the clock starting on A2's touch (a), before A2 releases the throw-in pass to A1, (b) while A2's throw-in pass is in flight to A1, or (c), as soon as A1 catches the throw-in pass.

Ruling: This is an obvious timing mistake and may be corrected. In (a) and (b), the official shall blow the whistle, stop play and direct the timer to put three seconds on the game clock. Since the throw-in had not ended, play is resumed with a Team A throw-in anywhere along the end line. In (c), the official may put the correct time on the clock, but must make some allowance for the touching by A1 -- likely 10ths of a second, if displayed. The ball is put in play nearest to where it was located when the stoppage occurred to correct the timing mistake. A "do over" is not permitted in (c), since the throw-in had ended. (4-36; 5-10-1)
---

So now we have an interpretation that gives us the ability to guess ("make some allowance") without having specific definite knowledge as from an official's count. I think this is newsworthy and should put to rest much of the debate we've had on this topic.

The conversations I remember people having were mostly based on individuals that were using their own ideas of what "definite knowledge" meant. I think this clarifies what many were already saying. ;)

Peace

I agree....

I think this interp is giving us the allowance to make up our own "definite knowledge" -- to a degree.

Note the "tenths of a second" phrase. Is that 1/10? 2/10? 3/10? Not much clarity there. Sounds like we can add what we think. I'm not sure that's the "definite knowledge" we've been debating.

I do not profess to remember every single conversation that was had on this issue. But I recall that there were people that claimed we could not move the clock if the ball was in-bounded and we could not take time off the clock unless we had a signal count to judge. In other words if 10 seconds was left in a quarter/half/game and the ball is in-bounded and the clock does not move, but a player dribbled and stood around for what is obviously a couple of seconds, some argued you could not take time off the clock unless you had a signal count. I think this basically says that we can take time off the clock even a little when we know time should have been off the clock.

Peace

Why would you take tenths of a second off the clock on this play when you are reverting back to the original out of bounds position in (a) and (b)? That would be CLEARLY penalizing team A for the timer's error. Thus having a clear, direct and unfair impact on the game. Reset the clock back to the known time, reset the play, tell the timer to watch yourself or your partner (which, btw, you should have done in the first place) and play on. Seems like a little common sense to me. Neither coach can argue with you in this situation when explained properly to them - and since there is probably a full court press on and your table crew has already screwed up team A's inbounds play, you've probably already set them at a disadvantage...so taking additional time off the clock would screw them even more.

You might want to re-read the original post...10th's are only taken off in sit. C, not A or B....

Ok, so i re-read the original post, and we are to take time off the clock in C. I completely, 100%, disagree with this and would never call it. I'm not going to compound my timer's mistake/problem and I would do what I said in A and B even in C. Why would the rulebook tell me to penalize team A for my timer's mistake. Backwards as far as I'm concerned...

Really? Case book tells you to do something and you absolutely refuse to do it?

:eek:

Actually, in (c), you would be screwing team B by not taking any time off, because A would have the ball advanced to where A2 caught it, without any time coming off. Remember, there are no "do-overs", so in (c) you can't go back to the endline and start over, you would put the ball back in play closest to where A caught it. I also agree there should be "some" time taken off, because, if done correctly, the timer would've started the clock on A2's touch/catch, and stopped quickly on the official's whistle. If you ask some officials, they will know exactly how many tenths elapsed, because they can count in tenths... ;)

But I do not think this interp on this particular situation now gives officials the blanket authority to guess at any length of time that they feel needs to be added or taken off. There are still the specific case plays governing "definite knowledge", including 5.10.1 and 5.10.2. None of them say anything about the official correcting an "approximate" amount of time, or that the official should "estimate" the proper amount of time to be corrected. All of them still rely on the official seeing the specific time on the clock, or using an official's count of some sort (which also includes a silent, non-visable count).

In what other situations do you make up your own rules? :confused:

Yes, but how many "tenths of a second" is that in METRIC:confused:

If you ask me, which, up to this point, has never happened, this interp is almost as bogus as the legendary backcourt interp. We make an adjustment, since we have "definite information" that "likely, tenths of a second" have elapsed.

As mathuc points out, this puts A at a clear disadvantage. They have the ball back, quite possibly at the same spot, depending on where the touch by A1 took place, with less time on the clock through no fault of their own.

If the throw-in is still on the end line, have they now lost the privilege of running the baseline?

Very similar to the discussion we had a few weeks ago. An adjustment of a few 10ths based on some very definite, though not precise, information.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.