It's not the importance of the call -- it's an obvious, visible error.

I just don't understand why it took so long to use the shot clock instead of a visible count in order to get these violations.

CG count: i'm guessing, no, because whether a player is being closely guarded is part of the judgment here.
Throw in: No, because there is no situation where the shot clock is running during a throw in. Also, you've either got a situation where the clock hasn't started, or there is judgment involved in when the throw in started.

By Fed rule, I'm not getting this until it gets ridiculous (as bob indicates above). Even then, I'm more likely to blow it dead and have a quick chat with my partner, quietly, to make sure he's paying attention.

Table competency.

How would I know when the player first was closely guarded? I'm not officiating my partner's match-ups.

How would I know what the throw-in count is? I guess it would be possible to check the game clock at the start of the throw-in after a made basket, but really, how practical is it for me as the off-official to check the game clock at the start of every throw-in after a basket?

However, when everyone in the gym can see the shot clock at 20 seconds, it's obvious that the violation has occurred, even if my partner's count is a little slow. So -- especially if there is backcourt pressure -- I will get the violation.

As a practical matter, officials have been using the shot clock instead of their visible count for years. It's just in the rulebook now.

================================================== =======

Scrapper,

I see your and Rich's point about the shot clock. We don't use shot clock here but it was clear that the game clock was at 1:00 for resumption of play and was at 48.7 when it stopped for a granted T.O.

If no shot clock, but game clock did start properly - at what point, would you have blown this violation for your partner? 49.9? 49.0? Would you treat this situation the same as if you had had a shot clock?

Without a shot clock, I likely would not come in to call the violation at all, because it's unlikely that I checked the game clock when the ball was first possessed inbounds.

However, if the clock was stopped for time-out with 1:00 remaining, I suppose it's possible that I would notice this and have some definite knowledge about when the violation should occur. In that rare case, I would come get it at 0:49. But I think that's extremely unlikely.

I could see doing this with a shot clock, depending on who my partner was. No way I'm doing it without one, though, with only a 1 second lag. Until the Fed specifically allows us to use the clock for violations (probably about the time they add the shot clock in CO), I'm not going to step in on this.

As I said, it would be extremely rare (and in fact, I've NEVER done this in 21 years of officiating), but why exactly wouldn't you call this?

Everybody can see 1:00 on the clock after the time-out. You can see the ball possessed immediately inbounds. And you can see the clock hit 0:49. It's obviously a violation. It's just as obvious as if you had a shot clock, except that it's not on a separate clock.

If you would do it with a shot clock, I don't see the rationale for not doing it without one.

I'm wondering why the off-official is watching the clock instead of the players in his area... but that's just me.

I also have a time believing I would notice this as the off official...that being said if somehow I do notice and I glance at my partner and he has a count I'm going to trust him and let him do his job....if he is off in dream land with no visible count then I *might* go get it depending on the scenario as a whole.

One of my big pet peeves: Assuming that officials can only look at one thing at one time and that being aware of something else means they're looking there at the expense of their primary responsibilities.

Really? We can't multi-task? We don't have peripheral vision?

No, I agree that as the lead I would be aware of the time at inbound, glance to see the clock start, but just don't think realistically I would be giving it enough of my attention to notice when it dropped below :50 secs...maybe I'm wrong though and this is something I need to add to my "Work On List."

It's not an either or situation...you can glance at the clock and not spare the expensive of off-ball officiating. It's not different then glancing at the clock as an off-ball official when a whistle is blown.

Perhaps this is regional, but in the vast majority of my gyms, looking at the clock during play is a conscious act - not a peripheral vision act. Not something you can glance at even (again ... most gyms) - it's something you have to turn your head up and away to see, most of the time.