Just like a test question!
 

Recent HS game situation:

20.2 seconds on clock in 4th quarter, 2 point game. A1 inbounds under own basket to A2. A2 dribbles once, shoots, rebounds own miss and is fouled. Official approaches table to report foul and is informed that the clock was not started. Official looks up sees that the clock is still at 20.2 seconds, and informs coach (who stated that clock had not started) that no change could be made to the clock because there was no definite knowledge of elapsed time. There was no ten second or five second count going on.

Was the official correct?

Yes

The Final Countdown (Europe, 1986) ...
 

By rule, yes. However experienced officials have a mental count going on in their heads near the end of a period, especially the fourth period, in a close game.

Did any of the officials in this situation have a partial three second count going?

however . . .?
 

By rule yes, however . . .?
If someone was counting, they would know a definite amount of time to take off.

how would you not take off at least a second or two? You have definite knowledge that some time went off. In that situation I'm going to talk to my partner and figure out a good guess.

Ooooh. This is a slippery slope. If you're guessing a "second or two," your knowledge is inherently not definite. You need official information like a count or something in this situation because that's how you sell your decision to an incredulous coach.

...Not saying taking a second or two off isn't appropriate if you say you had a 3-second count before the shot went up. Sounds like about 3-5 seconds elapsed in this scenario, so putting back the portion of the seconds that elapsed before the drive to the basket is reasonable.

What is it about clock operators having perfectly good games until the last 30 seconds of nailbiters?

THREE SECONDS!!?? I haven't called three seconds in 50 years! :p

MTD, Sr.

I agree.

But, there is that interp about the clock starting early, but A2 catching the ball when it's noticed and the officials taking "some time off, likely tenths of seconds" that could be expanded to this situation.

Of course, there's also the competing case where OT starts with, say 8:00 on the clock, it isn't noticed until, say 7:00 and they put 4:00 on the clock, even though there's pretty much definite knowledge that 1:00 expired. (and the second half of that case where if the OT starts with less than 4:00, the time is added back)

Can't use a three second count to take time off the clock, it must be a visible count.

Reference, please. The rule just says "definite knowledge"

Agreed.

That is what lifetime sub-varsity officials do. They don't like what the correct ruling is, so they opt not to follow it and make up a number. Don't guess!

I agree. Any count which is going to be used to remove time needs to be a visible count in this age of video. I'm not getting called in later to defend a mental count. The arm swings will show up on the video.

Actually there are two separate rules and "definite information" is in one while an official's count is mentioned in the other.
I have always understood "definite information" to mean an observed time on a clock or a table person telling you an exact number from the computer console or a stat computer, such as play-by-play. There is no ambiguity here and the number is precise. In the absence of this information second NFHS rule permits an official's count to be used to approximate the correct timing. This number won't be exactly right, but it is considered reasonably accurate. Lacking that, the mistake can't be fixed. Simply making a guess at how much time passed in not allowed.

Sometimes you just have to be courageous and hope your integrity is beyond reproach.

I agree with this, except I'm not using a "good guess". Officials can correct obviois mistakes by the timer when he/she has definate information relative to the time involved. A visible count is not required -- any definative official information may be used.

In this case, you have definate knowledge that more than zero seconds elapsed. Start from there and go up until you are no longer certain that much time elapsed. I might guess that 5 seconds elapsed, but if I'm only certain that at least 3 seconds elapsed, then I'm only taking 3 seconds off the clock.

If I don't have a count, I'm not doing anything, because I don't have enough information.

I ended a game once based on a count when the clock didn't start in the last few seconds. It was jr. high girls. Home team was down 3. Visitors booted the ball out of bounds with a second or two showing on the clock. I announced the game was over. Home coach later said "Thanks for robbing us of the chance to tie the game with a 3................even though we haven't made one all season. :D"

You are ontradicting yourself there.

A 3 second count is not a guess. If you have one, you have definite knowledge as much as you do on a visual count. If you don't use it because you are worried about whether someone else will believe it, that seems to be against what you normally stand for.

Agreed Hokie.

If this happens to me, and I hope it doesn't as I've never had a situation like it. But if I know some time has elapsed, then I will take the conservative approach. So if I think 5 seconds have gone off, then I'll take 3 seconds off. You know the clock was stopped at a certain time. You know the ball was inbounded and dribbled. Time had to have gone off. It would be absurd in this situation not to take some time off.

May seem absurd, but it's the rule. Going to your assigner with "well, I know something had to come off, and I thought it was probably 5 seconds, so I picked 3" could get you in trouble. Going to your assigner with "I know time should have come off, but none of us had a count so we left it alone" is backed by rule.

You can get away with the former in lower level games. I wouldn't try it in anything above middle school, though.

but logically I think it would be far better to take some time off. And I think there would be less of a problem as well. I doubt anyone would care.
For me I think option 2 would be far better and would be much more agreeable to everyone involved in the game.

Option 1- Sorry coach, we can't take time off the game even though clearly time did elapse because we don't have definite knowledge how much time went .

Option 2- Coach, we don't know how much time went off, but we think at least 3 seconds went off so we are going to take that off the clock.


I don't always go by the rulebook if a situation doesn't call for it. (Of course 99.9% of the times you should!!!) I had one of my first blarge calls earlier this season, and just called both coaches over who saw that the play could have gone either way. The game was running well and we just told them instead of working that out we will just say two( ha) inadvertent whistles and did POI. Both coaches were good with it as both wanted to avoid fouls on their key players involved in the play. Quick clear-up and things worked out well after. Yes, normally I would call it by the book here, but this was a game with good coaches and players where it could have been avoided without the blarge mess.

And you'll get away with either until you run into a coach and assigner who knows the rule.

I am never talking to a coach and using the word "think". In this situation one coach could say "I think 5 seconds came off" The other says "I think 1 second came off".

Just to clarify, that's not what I'd be going to my assignor saying. And that's not the thought process. As I said before, I'm not guessing.

I'd be following the rule that states "an official's count or other official information may be used to make a correction" and that a timing mistake can be corrected when the official "has definite information relative to the time involved".

The "official information" is that the ball was legally touched inbounds and some time has elapsed. The "definate information" is what I would get with my partners to determine ... specifically that "definitly at least X seconds had elapsed". A visible count is not necessary. If I'm observing a play and determine that a player was holding the ball but not-closely guarded for 3 seconds, passed the ball to a teammate who then shot, I have definite information that at least 3 seconds have elapsed, even though I did not have a visible count because the player was not closely guarded.

I'd be going to my assignor saying that I had definate knowledge that at least 3 seconds had elapsed and I used that knowledge to correct an obvious timing mistake. How is that incorrect by rule?

If you do not definitely know how much time, you simply can't guess. If an official had a closely guarded or backcourt count going, that's considered definite knowledge of how much time. We can't just arbitrarily pick a number.

5-10
ART. 1

The referee may correct an obvious mistake by the timer to start or stop the clock properly only when he/she has definite information relative to the time involved. The exact time observed by the official may be placed on the clock.

I really don't understand why some posters are going through contortions about what they will do without a count in game end situations to distort their guesses into something besides a guess when there is a very simple solution, which I believe was mentioned dozens of posts ago.

When in the end game situation, if youaren't responsible for a count, simply count as a backstop to the official timer until you know the clock actually started.

Am I missing something here?

I've done it before (end of a 1st quarter) and would have no problems doing it again.

Where did you get 3 seconds?

I've gotten in the habit of having at least a mental count on all throw-ins until I see the clock starting. Twice I've ended a quarter (once was the end of a game) with my own count because I was paying attention.

In the middle of the quarter, I just want the timer to start the clock in a reasonable amount of time. End of a quarter, I'll be more strict.

Are you kidding me? You chose to ignore fouls just because you had a blarge?? Why didn't you report BOTH fouls? And then get to the locker room at halftime or after the game and discuss with your partner the theories of PRIMARY AREAS and PATIENT WHISTLES?!?

I was giving an example. If I was observing the player with the ball, and he held the ball for 3 seconds but wasn't closely guarded, then I'm not going to have a visible count, but I still know that he was guarded for 3 seconds and I could still use that information to correct a timing mistake. For someone to suggest that that would only be a "guess" because there was no visible count is ridiculous.

I never suggested that. I don't happen to agree that a visible count is necessary: that's a legitimate point of contention.

If you have a mental count, that's enough. If you're not counting in your head, though, that's not definite knowledge: it's a guess.

I apologize. I misread your statement below to mean a visible count.


However, it was suggested by others that a visible count is required.

No worries, I realized the misunderstanding. It's not blatantly clear, but I had already agreed with bob when he challenged the post by SNIPER.

I will say this, though. If I'm going to end a quarter on my count, I'm using a visible count. I want THAT on tape.

Our association wants a visible count to be used. Time is a very subjective measure and one persons count can be much slower or faster than what a clock would measure.

That's true of visible counts too...

Do what your association wants, but that's different than claiming it's required by rule.

The rulebook says very little about visible counts and what counts as "definite knowledge", how do you guys define that?

My Opinion ...
 

For me personally, it's when I have a visible count, or when I'm consciously counting in my head (as in the last few seconds of a period, especially the last period).

For me definite knowledge would never be me mentally going back and trying to remember how much time had passed (unless I was actually counting). If I'm not counting, then it's not definite knowledge.

I missed that part the first time I responded to it, he added it later.

Agreed. Of all the possible ways to implement a blarge, that is perhaps the absolute worst.

As far as using a visible count at the end of the quarter, I don't. I don't feel the need to prove it to anybody, and what if the guy with the ball sees it and wrongly assumes it's a closely guarded count.

And you don't have to (prove it). That's a personal preference for me, because I may well end the quarter with 3 seconds on the clock. If I'm going to do something no one in the gym has likely ever seen happen, I just prefer to have as much back-up as possible.

This is a very reasonable attitude, but it also backs up my point. Nobody's ever seen this, so if they see the visible count, they're going to think it's something else.

What in the actual ****?

There is so much wrong here. The only thing I'll say is officiate as if every game of yours is being recorded and could end up on YouTube. Do you want to be seen on tape misapplying a rule? You (and your partner) have already screwed up mechanically...don't **** it up even more with a rules misapplication.