Clock running out

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

I think what is Nevada is saying is that you can't make up a count after the fact ("think up a numbers in your head").

Cobra is the one who never stated what his method would be.

If an official says "I noticed the clock hadn't started so I started counting mentally and got to 4 seconds" that would be definite knowledge in my book. But if an official says "there were at least 4 seconds elapsed" but offerred nothing else, then that would fall under "thinking up numbers in your head".

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

I took it differently. :shrug: Apologies for any confusion.

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

I think what is Nevada is saying is that you can't make up a count after the fact ("think up a numbers in your head").

Cobra is the one who never stated what his method would be.

If an official says "I noticed the clock hadn't started so I started counting mentally and got to 4 seconds" that would be definite knowledge in my book. But if an official says "there were at least 4 seconds elapsed" but offerred nothing else, then that would fall under "thinking up numbers in your head".

That's an incredibly charitable reading of "thinking numbers in your head" which is the description of counting mentally and what Nevada actually said (not what you quoted above).

[Loudwhistle2]

Bob,

If an official says "I noticed the clock hadn't started so I started counting mentally and got to 4 seconds" that would be definite knowledge in my book. But if an official says "there were at least 4 seconds elapsed" but offerred nothing else, then that would fall under "thinking up numbers in your head".[/QUOTE]

I agree and I too thought that this was Nevada's point.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

That's an incredibly charitable reading of "thinking numbers in your head" which is the description of counting mentally and what Nevada actually said (not what you quoted above).

Well, considering how many times I've read in past discussions "well we know at least ### seconds must have elapsed so..." I'm not going to define "thinking numbers in your head" as "counting mentally".

But I could be wrong about our Silver State respondent. I'll let Nevada clear that up.

[bob jenkins]

Rather than engaging on any further speculation as to what Nevada meant, I'll just stand by my post #29.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

That is what I believe by reading the NFHS rules book and Case book.

To simply do it mentally leaves the door wide open to abuse and officials just making up something when in a tough spot.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

That is what I believe by reading the NFHS rules book and Case book.

To simply do it mentally leaves the door wide open to abuse and officials just making up something when in a tough spot.

So only a visible count is official? Any other count has no bearing?



3 seconds!

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

That is what I believe by reading the NFHS rules book and Case book.

To simply do it mentally leaves the door wide open to abuse and officials just making up something when in a tough spot.

Assuming no integrity on the part of the official. I would like to think my partner(s) would be honest and say whether or not s/he had a mental count.

[JRutledge]

Until the rulebook defines what only constitutes as "definite knowledge" than that is whatever you choose it to be honestly. You can say you had a mental count but could be lying or not so sure.

Peace

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Until the rulebook defines what only constitutes as "definite knowledge" than that is whatever you choose it to be honestly. You can say you had a mental count but could be lying or not so sure.

Peace

It is possible to be not so sure even if it is a visible count.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by just another ref

It is possible to be not so sure even if it is a visible count.

Until they define what definite knowledge is, people are going ot use different standards for what that is. People will say things like, "There is no way he could have gone from Point A to Point B in (blank) amount of seconds." Just like we had a discussion earlier about taking time off the clock if the ball was in-bounded. I believe someone tried to suggest we could not take off any time if we did not have "definite knowledge." All we are talk about is our opinions as to what that is. So really anyone can say what they want when time is to be taken off. I know I use my visual count and even a mental note. Either way we are not going to ultimately solve this question. You will can use whatever you feel works for you if you ask me.

Peace

[BktBallRef]

Good grief.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Until they define what definite knowledge is, people are going ot use different standards for what that is. People will say things like, "There is no way he could have gone from Point A to Point B in (blank) amount of seconds." Just like we had a discussion earlier about taking time off the clock if the ball was in-bounded. I believe someone tried to suggest we could not take off any time if we did not have "definite knowledge." All we are talk about is our opinions as to what that is. So really anyone can say what they want when time is to be taken off. I know I use my visual count and even a mental note. Either way we are not going to ultimately solve this question. You will can use whatever you feel works for you if you ask me.

Peace

Definite knowledge is just that....do you KNOW how much time should have elapsed. It doesn't require that you be standing on your left foot and flap your right wing like a flamingo....just knowledge...a purely mental requirement. It doesn't preclude using a physical count but such a count is certainly not required by any valid reading of the rule.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Definite knowledge is just that....do you KNOW how much time should have elapsed. It doesn't require that you be standing on your left foot and flap your right wing like a flamingo....just knowledge...a purely mental requirement. It doesn't preclude using a physical count but such a count is certainly not required by any valid reading of the rule.

I totally agree, but some require all these things not stated in the rules and claim because it is not written to the letter, then it cannot be used.

Peace