Clock running out

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Loudwhistle2

Nevadan?

Best so far.

[Cobra]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Not with 4, but this play could have started with 12. Using a mechanic for anything other than its specified purpose so it will show up in a video doesn't seem right to me.

And I said conceivably.

Visible counting showing up on video doesn't really even matter. Anyone watching on video will be able to use a watch to see how much time elapsed between when the clock should have started and when the official stopped the game. You will either either be right or be wrong; either you stopped the game before the 4 seconds expired or after. No one is going to care that your arm was moving. No player is going to say "well it was actually only 3.7 seconds but him arm moved 4 times so I should have noticed and shot the ball quicker."

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Cobra

Visible counting showing up on video doesn't really even matter. Anyone watching on video will be able to use a watch to see how much time elapsed between when the clock should have started and when the official stopped the game. You will either either be right or be wrong; either you stopped the game before the 4 seconds expired or after. No one is going to care that your arm was moving. No player is going to say "well it was actually only 3.7 seconds but him arm moved 4 times so I should have noticed and shot the ball quicker."

No, they will know you didn't guess....that you based any adjustment on a count they could easily see you had.

[Cobra]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

No, they will know you didn't guess....that you based any adjustment on a count they could easily see you had.

Anyone who thinks that an official could possibly just be guessing on a call like this obviously doesn't get it and therefore their opinion should not matter.

When the video is on Youtube everyone is just going to look at the video timer and see how much time should have gone off the game clock. Either the game was ended before or after 4 seconds had elapsed. The call was either correct or incorrect; that's all the people care about. Getting the call wrong after the video shows you weren't guessing isn't any better than just plain getting the call wrong without a visible count.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Cobra

Anyone who thinks that an official could possibly just be guessing on a call like this obviously doesn't get it and therefore their opinion should not matter.

When the video is on Youtube everyone is just going to look at the video timer and see how much time should have gone off the game clock. Either the game was ended before or after 4 seconds had elapsed. The call was either correct or incorrect; that's all the people care about. Getting the call wrong after the video shows you weren't guessing isn't any better than just plain getting the call wrong without a visible count.

You still don't get it.

IT'S ABOUT FOLLOWING THE RULES!!!!!!

The rules require the referee to have definite knowledge of any timing error to correct it. The rules book states that an official's count may be used for the correction. So if the clock isn't running when it should be and this needs to be corrected, what are you going to use other than a count to fix it? You can't just make something up or think numbers in your head because the RULES don't allow that.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

The rules require the referee to have definite knowledge of any timing error to correct it. The rules book states that an official's count may be used for the correction. So if the clock isn't running when it should be and this needs to be corrected, what are you going to use other than a count to fix it? You can't just make something up or think numbers in your head because the RULES don't allow that.

So counting in your head would not qualify as definite knowledge but a visible count would?

[Rich]

Originally Posted by just another ref

So counting in your head would not qualify as definite knowledge but a visible count would?

I would use a "count in my head" without thinking twice.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by richmsn

i would use a "count in my head" without thinking twice.

+1

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Cobra

Anyone who thinks that an official could possibly just be guessing on a call like this obviously doesn't get it and therefore their opinion should not matter.

It's happened and will happen again. Not all officials follow the rules and just make stuff up when they're unsure. I've seen it happen.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by just another ref

So counting in your head would not qualify as definite knowledge but a visible count would?

Originally Posted by RichMSN

I would use a "count in my head" without thinking twice.

I always have a last ten seconds countdown in my head. Every game. Every period.

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

You still don't get it.

IT'S ABOUT FOLLOWING THE RULES!!!!!!

The rules require the referee to have definite knowledge of any timing error to correct it. The rules book states that an official's count may be used for the correction. So if the clock isn't running when it should be and this needs to be corrected, what are you going to use other than a count to fix it? You can't just make something up or think numbers in your head because the RULES don't allow that.

A count in my head is my definite knowledge. It may not be the coach's or anyone else's definite knowledge, but the rules don't require visible definite knowledge, just definite knowledge.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by just another ref

So counting in your head would not qualify as definite knowledge but a visible count would?

That's not at all what Nevada said.

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

That's not at all what Nevada said.

That's exactly what Nevada said, to wit:

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

You can't just . . . think numbers in your head because the RULES don't allow that.

And I believe him to be wrong as well.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

That's exactly what Nevada said, to wit:



And I believe him to be wrong as well.

You need a count. The count need not be visible. It's better (from a game management perspective) if it is.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

You need a count. The count need not be visible. It's better (from a game management perspective) if it is.

I think most agree with that....but it sure appeared to me that Nevada was saying a mental count wasn't enough....it had to be an official count with the visible arm swing to be valid.