Late Game Situation

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by AremRed

How much is all that matters to the NFHS. Unless you have definite knowledge of how much time was left (i.e. you saw the clock), you cannot put time back on.

You can double check me on this, but I'm pretty sure the words "how much" do not appear in the rule. I believe what it says is definite knowledge "relative to the time" involved. The definite knowledge in Scrapper's example would be:

anything > 0

With this in mind, you might as well make it .1 on the clock. The effect would be the same.

[A Pennsylvania Coach]

For what it's worth, what the officials did in the game I saw was shot the free throws despite not putting any time back on the clock. No lineup. I'd say the whistle for the foul came at about 1.5 seconds and the foul itself probably around 2.0. Weird way to end a game, and wrong of course. I'm guessing they might say that they had some definite knowledge but the clock operator couldn't quickly put time back up. But, they went to the shots pretty quickly so I don't know if I'd buy that story!

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by A Pennsylvania Coach

For what it's worth, what the officials did in the game I saw was shot the free throws despite not putting any time back on the clock. No lineup. I'd say the whistle for the foul came at about 1.5 seconds and the foul itself probably around 2.0. Weird way to end a game, and wrong of course. I'm guessing they might say that they had some definite knowledge but the clock operator couldn't quickly put time back up. But, they went to the shots pretty quickly so I don't know if I'd buy that story!

One thing is certain. In a 9 point game, if you don't put time back up, you don't shoot the free throws.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by just another ref

You can double check me on this, but I'm pretty sure the words "how much" do not appear in the rule. I believe what it says is definite knowledge "relative to the time" involved. The definite knowledge in Scrapper's example would be:

anything > 0

With this in mind, you might as well make it .1 on the clock. The effect would be the same.

You should consult the Case Book plays and the Interp rulings. They say that the official can restore what he saw on the clock.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

You should consult the Case Book plays and the Interp rulings. They say that the official can restore what he saw on the clock.

It says he can restore what he saw on the clock, sure. It doesn't say that he can restore only what he saw on the clock. I'm backing up what Scrapper says. He had a count in his head which started with the whistle. "one thou....."
That was definitely some time.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by just another ref

It says he can restore what he saw on the clock, sure. It doesn't say that he can restore only what he saw on the clock. I'm backing up what Scrapper says. He had a count in his head which started with the whistle. "one thou....."
That was definitely some time.

I would say that one enters dangerous territory when using a non-visual count as definite information to correct timing errors. I wouldn't do it. If I'm going to correct a timing error, I want my count to be visual so that it can be verified on video if questioned about it later.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by just another ref

I'm backing up what Scrapper says. He had a count in his head which started with the whistle. "one thou.....".

Did Scrapper1 actually say that ("count in his head")? If he did, then I also agree with him, but I may have missed him saying that. Without a mental count, or a visual on the clock, from the table, or from the officials, there is no definite knowledge. The NFHS doesn't allow us to guess.

[Pantherdreams]

Around here we would put sometime back up. Our high school competitive season has home and homes between conference teams where in case of a split the point spreads matter. If Team A loses by 8 in Nov, but goes on the road and wins by 7 in Jan. They still lose the split when it comes down to records.

Several officials have gotten their knuckles wrapped for not being concerned whether about timing/scoring issues when the game was "in hand" and coaches/AD's filed complaints.

In regards to the OP. I'm putting something back on the clock after discussions with my partners and the table. The kid staring at his clock monitor had to have some info based on when the whistle went. After all consultation something is going back on the clock.

[bob jenkins]

In concept / theory, I agree with Scrapper / JAR. Put something back up.

But, according to the FED (and, I think, NCAAW) rules, if the official doesn't see the clock, or have a count going, then you can't put anything up.

Now, if your state association has said to do something different, then follow that advice, of course.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

In concept / theory, I agree with Scrapper / JAR. Put something back up.

But, according to the FED (and, I think, NCAAW) rules, if the official doesn't see the clock, or have a count going, then you can't put anything up.

Now, if your state association has said to do something different, then follow that advice, of course.

Sometimes the letter of the rule has to be superseded by some common sense. If I know there's time left, I'm putting time up. Period.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by just another ref

You can double check me on this, but I'm pretty sure the words "how much" do not appear in the rule. I believe what it says is definite knowledge "relative to the time" involved. The definite knowledge in Scrapper's example would be:

anything > 0

With this in mind, you might as well make it .1 on the clock. The effect would be the same.

No. That is not what they mean by relative. Relative means knowledge relating to the amount the time as apposed to definite knowledge relating to the score or something else.