Mich St / WIS

[Rufus]

I don't call college so this is largely academic, but can someone explain why the backboard clock/light supersedes the game clock in this situation? I've read the rule posted by tjones and it only says that the LED lights will be used only if the game clock isn't visible. In this case the game clock(s) were visible but disagreed.

I guess the question is, does the first-stated rule - that the red backboard light ends the period - take precedence over the subsection (b) rule?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Rufus

I don't call college so this is largely academic, but can someone explain why the backboard clock/light supersedes the game clock in this situation? I've read the rule posted by tjones and it only says that the LED lights will be used only if the game clock isn't visible. In this case the game clock(s) were visible but disagreed.

I guess the question is, does the first-stated rule - that the red backboard light ends the period - take precedence over the subsection (b) rule?

No.

In order -- game clock (not the "superimposed clock on the ESPN screen"), red lights, horn.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by bainsey

This rule changed last year, I believe. It used to be that the officials must go by the horn for a quarter's end. Now, if there's a light behind the backboard (LED or single light), we are to consider the light primarily.

Originally Posted by tjones1

I think it was changed two years ago (2009-2010).

It was indeed '09-'10.

[Larks]

Wow...

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Larks

Wow...

I think that the only thing you can read into this is that the upper arena display is slow to update. Not really that surprising. Nothing is instant....just some things are faster than others. The fancier the display, the more likely it will be the slower device.

LED lights are fast....far faster even than simple incandescent lights....probably the quickest response time of any of the displays.
Turning on a single light is faster than configuring digits on a fancy display.
Turning on the segments in a 7-segment display (the over the board clock) is faster than turning driving a fancy display.

[Rufus]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

No.

In order -- game clock (not the "superimposed clock on the ESPN screen"), red lights, horn.

Thanks Bob. In this particular case, then, the game clock is the one over the backboard and not the one in the arena in the background (as opposed to the ESPN clock)?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Rufus

Thanks Bob. In this particular case, then, the game clock is the one over the backboard and not the one in the arena in the background (as opposed to the ESPN clock)?

Correct.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Rufus

Thanks Bob. In this particular case, then, the game clock is the one over the backboard and not the one in the arena in the background (as opposed to the ESPN clock)?

Sort of....

The one in the above shot is not the ESPN clock...it may or may not also be a game clock.

The ESPN clock is a virtual representation of the actual clock. It is not tied into the clock console. They often have a nice looking graphic clock that is a recreation of the real clock but is not guaranteed to be the accurate. It is controlled separately and only approximates the game clock. When it comes down to close situation, they usually switch to an inset view of the actual game clock, not a recreation as that is the only one that matters.

If there is more than one display of the game clock in the arena and they don't agree, I would suggest that the one with the lowest time is probably the most accurate. The one showing 0.2 in the freeze frame is just delayed in showing the current time. When stopped at any earlier point, it would have settled at the same time as the other one after a 0.2 second delay and would start a moment after when resumed.

[Tio]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Sort of....

The one in the above shot is not the ESPN clock...it may or may not also be a game clock.

The ESPN clock is a virtual representation of the actual clock. It is not tied into the clock console. They often have a nice looking graphic clock that is a recreation of the real clock but is not guaranteed to be the accurate. It is controlled separately and only approximates the game clock. When it comes down to close situation, they usually switch to an inset view of the actual game clock, not a recreation as that is the only one that matters.

If there is more than one display of the game clock in the arena and they don't agree, I would suggest that the one with the lowest time is probably the most accurate. The one showing 0.2 in the freeze frame is just delayed in showing the current time. When stopped at any earlier point, it would have settled at the same time as the other one after a 0.2 second delay and would start a moment after when resumed.

It is hard to say how those clocks get the data. I would guess there is some sort of wireless connection with a delay.

[letemplay]

Most new scoreboards are operated via wireless signal, although some do have a hard wire either for backup or because the particular arena has experienced interferences on their wireless. I'm going to offer that in this case the clock on top of basket is receiving a wireless signal, while the main arena scoreboard is connected via hard cable like a standard co-ax or cat-5. If this were the case it can actually take longer for the signal to reach that distance, which MAY explain the very momentary delay of .02

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by letemplay

If this were the case it can actually take longer for the signal to reach that distance, which MAY explain the very momentary delay of .02

It's .2, not .02. And, yes, it makes a difference.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by letemplay

Most new scoreboards are operated via wireless signal, although some do have a hard wire either for backup or because the particular arena has experienced interferences on their wireless. I'm going to offer that in this case the clock on top of basket is receiving a wireless signal, while the main arena scoreboard is connected via hard cable like a standard co-ax or cat-5. If this were the case it can actually take longer for the signal to reach that distance, which MAY explain the very momentary delay of .02

Wireless is almost always slower than wired unless the wire is ridiculously long.....as in going a few miles out of the way. Wireless has more steps of encoding/decoding to go through that wired doesn't and must undergo much more complicated error detection and correction....all adding to delays beyond what wired solutions encounter. In humanly observable terms, however, they're usually close enough....but wireless is rarely faster.

The difference is more likely in the processing module that converts the control signals into the signals to turn on/off the relevant lighting elements on the board and the time it takes for the board/display to switch them on/off....known as lag time....the time from when the input signal arrives at the display to when the display reflects the input. And this is not the same as response time.

Typical lag times for LCD monitors, for example, range from something like 20ms (0.02 sec) up to around 200ms (0.2 sec) and LCD monitors are compact, high volume products where the cost of developing a fast system is amortized across the millions of units.

I would not be surprised if the large, fancy arena monitors had lag times greater than that of LCD monitors. The 0.2 sec lag difference as shown in the above snapshot would not be unreasonable.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bainsey

There aren't any high school gyms in these parts that have those lights, only the college gyms.

Only one gym, of the seventy high schools that we service, has the lights. I was there last week, and the lights behind only one backboard worked. The lights down the other side were broken.

[Rich]

I was amused with Bo Ryan getting angry and swearing at the officials *after* the replay review. ESPN even pixilated Ryan's mouth during SportsCenter.

I mean, it's one thing to argue with the live event, but with a replay that he hadn't even seen? To the point of losing his temper?

I had a ticket for last night, but couldn't find a sub for my GV game so I ended up eating it (I listed it on StubHub, but had no takers, even at below-face value). Not sad I missed it. The Badgers are in for a long season if they don't remember how to shoot the ball.

[grunewar]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

I was amused with Bo Ryan getting angry and swearing at the officials *after* the replay review. ESPN even pixilated Ryan's mouth during SportsCenter.

I mean, it's one thing to argue with the live event, but with a replay that he hadn't even seen? To the point of losing his temper?

I thought that was excellent! I mean - how can you be mad at the officials after they took theri time to review it and get it right? It's not their fault the player releasedit a hair late and they got the play right! Sheesh!