Clock running out

[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

[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.

[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.

[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".

[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.

[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.

[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.