Bad Time for the Clock to Stop

[BDevil15]

Originally Posted by Coach Bill

I want to know how u saw exactly 5.3 on a running clock. That's amazing!

For approximately .1 second the clock says 5.3, are you honestly saying you have never seen any digit in the .1 second it was on the clock? Is it just a blur when you look at the tenths digit when its running?

[Coach Bill]

Originally Posted by BDevil15

For approximately .1 second the clock says 5.3, are you honestly saying you have never seen any digit in the .1 second it was on the clock? Is it just a blur when you look at the tenths digit when its running?

No, I can see the digits quickly scrolling by.... Signals from the eye take about a tenth of a second to reach the brain. The blink of an eye is approximately two tenths of a second. When I go from looking away at my running timer on my phone and then glance at it, I can pinpoint it to a small range (maybe within .3 seconds), but I can't tell you exactly to the tenth of a second. The official has to see that the ball is at the disposal of the inbounder, glance at the running clock, and start the count. To say for certain it was exactly at 5.3 is not humanly possible. If his brain registers 5.3, then it was at least 5.4. That's the only point I'm trying to make. I would still ask the table when they stopped the clock, and not immediately go to 0.3.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Coach Bill

... I would still ask the table when they stopped the clock, and not immediately go to 0.3.

They stopped it at 1.6 seconds.

[Coach Bill]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

They stopped it at 1.6 seconds.

I know. 1.6 is weird, right? I think maybe they stopped it after the basket by mistake at 5.3, that is why the official is so adamant he saw exactly 5.3, and then the timer said oops, i wasn't supposed to stop it, and started it again, and then stopped it on his 5-second count whistle. I would like to hear more of the conversation with the table.

[deecee]

Originally Posted by Coach Bill

I know. 1.6 is weird, right? I think maybe they stopped it after the basket by mistake at 5.3, that is why the official is so adamant he saw exactly 5.3, and then the timer said oops, i wasn't supposed to stop it, and started it again, and then stopped it on his 5-second count whistle. I would like to hear more of the conversation with the table.

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.

[Rob1968]

Originally Posted by Coach Bill

No, I can see the digits quickly scrolling by.... Signals from the eye take about a tenth of a second to reach the brain. The blink of an eye is approximately two tenths of a second. When I go from looking away at my running timer on my phone and then glance at it, I can pinpoint it to a small range (maybe within .3 seconds), but I can't tell you exactly to the tenth of a second. The official has to see that the ball is at the disposal of the inbounder, glance at the running clock, and start the count. To say for certain it was exactly at 5.3 is not humanly possible. If his brain registers 5.3, then it was at least 5.4. That's the only point I'm trying to make. I would still ask the table when they stopped the clock, and not immediately go to 0.3.

(from Wikipedia)
The human eye and its brain interface, the human visual system, can process 10 to 12 separate images per second, perceiving them individually.

[1] The threshold of human visual perception varies depending on what is being measured. When looking at a lighted display, people begin to notice a brief interruption of darkness if it is about 16 milliseconds or longer.

[2] Observers can recall one specific image in an unbroken series of different images, each of which lasts as little as 13 milliseconds.

Coach, it seems the ascertion regarding 10-12 visual images processed per second by a human brain, is modified by element [2], which explains why/how it is possible to perceive the presentation of individual tenths on the clock.

[bob jenkins]

I also think (no scientific evidence) that there's a difference between the lighted segments / light bulbs on a stadium clock and the lcds used on a phone in terms of being able to see individual digits.

[Coach Bill]

Originally Posted by Rob1968

(from Wikipedia)
The human eye and its brain interface, the human visual system, can process 10 to 12 separate images per second, perceiving them individually.

[1] The threshold of human visual perception varies depending on what is being measured. When looking at a lighted display, people begin to notice a brief interruption of darkness if it is about 16 milliseconds or longer.

[2] Observers can recall one specific image in an unbroken series of different images, each of which lasts as little as 13 milliseconds.

Coach, it seems the ascertion regarding 10-12 visual images processed per second by a human brain, is modified by element [2], which explains why/how it is possible to perceive the presentation of individual tenths on the clock.

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.

[jpgc99]

Originally Posted by Coach Bill

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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by jpgc99

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.

[Coach Bill]

Originally Posted by jpgc99

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.

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.

[jpgc99]

Originally Posted by Coach Bill

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.

[deecee]

Originally Posted by Coach Bill

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 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.

[jTheUmp]

Originally Posted by Coach Bill

We know what he sees is going to be slow by about 1/10 second.

Assumes facts not in evidence

With all going on, he may have seen 5.3 and it really should have been 5.6 or 5.7.

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).

It's never going to be less. For example, you're not going to see 5.2 before you see 5.3.

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

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.

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.

Now, we are getting close to potentially being off by over a second. So, ask the timer what happened, is my point.

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.