Why are you making this so complicated??? Official glances at the clock when he starts his count, clock reads 5.3.

Official begins his count and at count 5 realizes the clock was stopped at 1.6. 1.6 is irrelevant.

Official has definitive knowledge that 5 seconds has run. Officials last knowledge of the time was 5.3 (which anyone who can read a clock can see the tenths, once again its not rocket science).

Official takes the 5.3 seconds and subtracts the 5 seconds he knows ran off the clock and that is left with .3 seconds.

So this process isn't that hard, it's simple subtraction. What the timer doesn't matter compared to what the official knows.

Doing some travel ball yesterday I had a strange sequence. 2.5ish on the clock, team up 2 points has backcourt endline spot throw-in after a foul. Kid can't find anyone to throw it to so he throws it in and a kid from the opposing team grabs it and launches a three. Swish. After I see it go in I immediatly look over at the bench expecting a timeout but the coach is in shock and is just standing there looking. I look back at the clock and it has stopped at 0.8. Thanks a lot clock operator. I count to one and blow it dead. Game over.

I'm not arguing that you can't see the tenths. You can. But, even, your post states that the human eye can process 10 to 12 separate images per second. That's about 1/10 second. So, if you see 5.3, it was 5.4 at the time. And, I think that's the best you can do. I would argue that with all the stuff going on in the official's peripheral vision that he needs to pay attention to during that quick glance, it is more likely that the margin of error is greater than 1/10 second. Not to mention, he probably glanced at the scoreboard clock about 90 feet away, which might also be a factor.

I still do not understand the point you are trying to make. I've read the entire thread and believe you are arguing that there should be more time on the clock than .3.

The correct decision was made. However, if we were using a stopwatch to time the play, the game would probably be over. You are correct that the count is not 100%accurate, but if we timed it with a stopwatch we would actually have less time on the clock. Here is why:

1) Official looks at the clock and sees 0:05.3
2) Official begins 5 second count
3) Official reaches 5 second count and blows the whistle. 1.6 seconds is on the clock.

Additional time has elapsed between step 1 and step 2. We know at least 5 seconds have come off the clock so at most .3 seconds remain.

According to his follow up post, steps 1 and 2 were simulaneous.

We do not "know" that at least 5 seconds went off the clock. 1&2 were supposedly simultaneous. So it is not at least 5, if the official's count may have been 4.9 seconds.

I do believe that the correct decision was probably made. However, you could argue that if he saw 5.3, then it was really 5.4 and .4 should be on the clock.

But, this is my point: The clock was running! We know what he sees is going to be slow by about 1/10 second. With all going on, he may have seen 5.3 and it really should have been 5.6 or 5.7. It's never going to be less. For example, you're not going to see 5.2 before you see 5.3. How simultaneous was the glance and the start of the count. Another inaccuracy of 0.2 seconds (the blink of an eye) could happen here. Say, his 5 count was actually 4.5. Now, we are getting close to potentially being off by over a second. So, ask the timer what happened, is my point.

I can agree with this thinking, especially that the best course of action would be to ask the timer what happened as part of the accumulation of definite knowledge. From there, if the clock operator does say that the clock was inadvertently stopped, the decision to put .3 on the clock is the best decision and supported by the rulebook definition of definite knowledge.

I would not ask the timer. I either have a 5 count or I don't. By your logic we can argue the existentialism of any and all fouls. You have complicated a very simple task. Observing the clock, and subtracting from that the number you have counted to by adding layers of supposition and nonsense.

Say his 5 count was really 8 seconds, or no say it was 3 seconds, maybe say it was 4 hours. The 2 facts remain, 5.3 was observed, and a 5 count was conducted.

Subtract the difference. Your whole logic is so flawed with hypothetical nonsense that you have created a very arbitrary number of 1 second, what if 2 blinks of an eye were missed, or 3, or in fact a lifetime.

That's funny. Did you even read my post? "8 seconds, 3 seconds, 4 hours? Good one.

Scientific facts are now being called "Hypothetical nonsense".

I haven't picked any arbitrary numbers, I've just suggested that the accuracy "may" be off, and showed how it easily could be, and if you had video replay, I would guarantee it would be, by some fraction.

I guess you defy the laws of nature and are perfect. You can read a running clock to the accuracy of the exact tenth of a second and your 5 count is always exactly 5 seconds, and you always start them exactly simultaneously with your clock glance. Good for you. You should work at the NBA replay center and just tell everyone how much time was left when the ball went through the hoop. It would save a lot of time.

Everyone else, I recommend spending a few seconds at such a critical time in the game, to make sure everything is what you think it is.

you have done a great job of complicating a very simple task. We work with definitive knowledge and what we see is what's definitive. I would not trust anyone else's opinion except my partners in dealing with this. If neither of us have any clue we have bigger issues. Until replay is allowed this is what we work with.

Your hypothetical's are just pure hogwash. You haven't offered anything of substance except we "may" be off, which is 100% correct, and 100% useless. Then you offer a potential solution and what if, that we do not have the luxury of.

Instead of thinking what things "may" be go with what they are and what you know, that's our limitation. In this case the OP handled it correctly and that's what any official should do. Hypothesizing on the passage of time and what may or may not be adds complications that are not needed.

I would not ask the timer or anyone else if my partner tells me he saw X time and had Y count. I would do what the rules say and common sense dictates and I would subtract Y from X.

It's not any more complicated than that, and it needn't be.

For your information my 5/10 second counts are about +/- 1-2 tenths of a second. IMO, that's pretty good and I can live with that.

My solution seems to have been lost on you. Because, I agree, 99% of the time, 0.3 is the correct time to go with. That's your best available information.

I agree, I think it's a stretch for 1.6 to be left. I'd bet they stopped it by mistake, started it, and stopped it on the whistle.

But, if the clock said 0.6, and you went up to the timer, and they said I didn't touch it until you blew your whistle, then I think you would be wrong to change it.

Assumes facts not in evidence

How? If I see 5.3 on the clock, that means that the clock was at 5.3 when the light emitted from the clock reached my eyeballs. By the time the light was processed by my retinas and interpreted by my brain, it's possible that the "actual" time on the clock is down to 5.2 or 5.1 or 5.0 or whatever, but if I saw 5.3 seconds, there's no way there's actually still 5.7 seconds on the clock when I saw it. (since, you know, 5.7 would've been displayed BEFORE 5.3 was displayed).

Exactly my point above... which runs counter to your "It could've been 5.6 or 5.7" assertion.

Yes, this these things could've possibly happened. Equally likely is that the officials' 5 count was slightly slow, and, in fact 5.4 seconds elapsed.

The timer has one job... to start and stop the clock as directed by the officials (well, the timer does have other jobs, but that's the only one that matters in this situation). The timer failed to do his job, and it's up to the official to correct using the information that the official has. And I'm not asking the timer for his opinion when it's been clearly demonstrated that he's not doing his job properly.

Yes -- it might be off.

Do you have a suggestion as to what else we might do, both within the current rules and with any proposed rules change?

I think the question is this - how did you definitively see exactly 5.3 on a clock that was moving.

I would say the words definitively and exactly are not the most appropriate. The answer to your question is: "I did the best I could."