Clock running out
 

This didn't happen in my game, but what if?:
4 tics remaining tied game
A1 throws it into A2 who beats the bad defense and is heading for a layup 50 feet away.
I notice clock hasn't started, I begin a count in my head and blow it dead prior to the layup. Just prior to blowing it dead, I notice the clock is now running and has 3 seconds remaining (obviously started 2 seconds or more late) I blow whistle, clock stops and there is 2.4 remaining. We're going to OT.
I'm sure there would be some angry people there, but is this what you would do?

What was your count?

I would visibly have a count. You want to be supported by film.

Fortunately this has not happened, but by thinking about it ahead of time I would be prepared and I would have a wrist flick as my visual count

I've done it, twice.

Now, I always have a count in the closing seconds, and I would rather stop play two seconds in, reset the clock, and have a new throw in at the appropriate spot.
To me, that's the least problematic solution.

Use a full arm swing for this count. You want it to be clearly visible on any video.

If you use a full arm swing for this purpose, couldn't it conceivably cause confusion. A player or coach mistakes it for a closely guarded count?

I doubt they're paying that close attention to your ARM swing with 4 seconds left.

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.

With that much time left to start the play, the best answer is definitely to kill the play, take off the appropriate time, and put it back in play.

Agree.

I concur with Snaqwell's previous two posts.

It's as if I've been hugged.

...by a ___________________.

(Fill in the blank contest.)

Nevadan?

Best so far.

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.

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.

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.

+1

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.

T Minus Ten Seconds And Counting ...
 

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

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.

That's not at all what Nevada said.

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.

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".

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

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).

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.

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.

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

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!

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.

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.

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

Good grief.

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

I agree
 

If anyone is going to require "definite knowledge" by the pure definition of the word, then we never have it. Our visible counts are not as accurate as the clock. At best we have a reasonable estimation as to how much time to take off. Its the best we can do and is better than just making something up. Also, if my partner is responsible for a visible count but forgets to provide one, can I not provide him with my mental count if I have one (a count that is and not a mind :) ) to help in determining how much time to take off? I believe by rule I can.


The definition of definite....

clearly defined or determined; not vague or general; fixed; precise; exact: a definite quantity; definite directions; positive; certain; sure:

There is a whistle. The official looks at the clock and it says 4:34. It continues to run and stops at 4:28.

The official isn't certain and sure of how much time should be on the clock?

That's not the scenario
 

In the scenario offered it was a count that was the definite knowledge. A human count is not going to be as accurate as a clock. So I shouldn't have said never but in the OP we don't have definite knowledge

When the words "definite knowledge" appear in the book, it has nothing to do with accuracy. It means don't guess. I definitely counted. I definitely asked that guy in the stands that I noticed was holding a stopwatch. etc.

It means "The clock didn't start. How much time do y'all suppose elapsed? About 8 or 10 seconds will be close enough," is not allowed.

Which is not to say that some officials don't do it anyway.

That is NOT definite knowledge. You have no idea if they did or did not correctly time the event you're asking about or their impartiality.

The hypothetical guy was my dad.:D

And I was supposed to read you mind??? :p

YES


Seriously, the point was that definite knowledge meant that obtained from a solid source deemed reliable as opposed to a guess, by the official or anyone else. It is a given that no timing device can be 100% accurate in this situation.

My dad passed away in '94, and for a while before that I wouldn't have trusted him with a stopwatch.

I think I'd draw the line at getting help from someone, even a trusted someone, in the stands.

It's A Matter Of Trust ...
 

Mother Teresa? Gandhi? Jesus? Dr. M. L. King, Jr.? Lincoln?