5 second count

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Freddy

May an official call a 5 second closely guarded violation based on "five seconds in his head", not having given the mandatory visual count?

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

... there may be times here and there when you skip a few arm strokes.

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

... the number in my head and the number of arm strokes I've issued are not always exactly the same, and that's ok because I'm the only one who knows.

Maybe twenty-five years ago you would have been "the only one who knows". In 2014, almost everyone in the gymnasium has a video camera, pretty much anyone with a cell phone. Johnny "loses" the game on a late in the game ten second backcourt violation, and the next day Grandma emails the coach with proof that there were only eight visible counts.

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

... but sometimes it happens.

Originally Posted by HokiePaul

But I'd rather apply the rule correctly even if it didn't look good.

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

Visibly count as often as you can, but using good judgment there may be times here and there when you skip a few arm strokes.

It happens to me a couple of times each season. Sometimes it takes me a few seconds (brain fart) to realize that there's a closely guarded situation. I give it four visible counts, and call the violation knowing that it was probably six, or seven seconds. Someday, I'm going to get caught red handed on "Candid Camera". Hopefully I can explain it away by concentrating on the actual time rather than on the visible count.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Johnny "loses" the game on a late in the game ten second backcourt violation, and the next day Grandma emails the coach with proof that there were only eight visible counts.

So what? Assuming the count was reasonably accurate, the video will also prove that. The lack of a visible 10 second count puts nobody at a disadvantage.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by just another ref

So what? Assuming the count was reasonably accurate, the video will also prove that.

Already got it covered:

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I can explain it away by concentrating on the actual time rather than on the visible count.

This is the statement that I was questioning:

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

I'm the only one who knows.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by just another ref

So what? Assuming the count was reasonably accurate, the video will also prove that. The lack of a visible 10 second count puts nobody at a disadvantage.

I agree. It's different than a 5 second count, in that there's no "closely guarded" judgment involved. Everyone knows you have 10 seconds to get across the line. With 5 seconds, it's assumed that if you're not counting, then the player isn't in jeopardy.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Adam

With 5 seconds, it's assumed that if you're not counting, then the player isn't in jeopardy.

We (Connecticut IAABO) did away with the "not closely guarded" signal (it looked like the sixty-second timeout signal) this year after using it for a couple of years, for the exact reason stated by Adam.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

We (Connecticut IAABO) did away with the "not closely guarded" signal (it looked like the sixty-second timeout signal) this year after using it for a couple of years, for the exact reason stated by Adam.

As a college official and even after the NFHS adopted the CCA signal I have never (with apologies to the late J. Dallas Shirley) used the signal. If I am not giving a visual count it means I do not have a Closely Guarded Situation.

MTD, Sr.