Bad Time for the Clock to Stop

[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.

[Coach Bill]

Originally Posted by deecee

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.

[deecee]

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.

[Coach Bill]

Originally Posted by deecee

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.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Coach Bill

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.

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?

[Coach Bill]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

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?

Yes.

Case Play:

SITUATION A: Team A scores. As the official begins a five-second count the official glances at the running clock which reads 6.5 seconds. Team B commits a five second count violation. The official blows the whistle and looks at the clock which reads 1.8 seconds. A timing error is suspected.

RULING: After conferring with the timer and your partners, it is determined that:

a) the clock was prematurely stopped or had malfunctioned.
b) the clock had not malfunctioned and was not stopped until the official's whistle for the 5-second violation.

In a), use the procedure in rule 5.10.2 to correct the clock to 1.5 seconds.
In b), make no change to the clock.

[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.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by jTheUmp

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,

Einstein would disagree. Light travels 18,628 MILES in a tenth of a second. Court ain't that big.

[Coach Bill]

Originally Posted by jTheUmp

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).

With all due respect, you're wrong. Don't forget, everything is being done simultaneously. You look at the clock and start your count at the same time. If your brain registers 5.3, then at the time your eyeballs saw it and you started your 5-second count, the time was about 5.4 (if u believe science).

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Coach Bill

With all due respect, you're wrong. Don't forget, everything is being done simultaneously. You look at the clock and start your count at the same time. If your brain registers 5.3, then at the time your eyeballs saw it and you started your 5-second count, the time was about 5.4 (if u believe science).

Only if you believe pseudo science. Even if you take 10 seconds to process what was on the clock, it was still 5.3 when you observed it. Take an old-style photo of the clock, get the negatives developed and printed after 3 days. What will be on them? The time that was actually on the clock when the observation was made.

The delays of the brain at the observing, starting and stopping of the clock will cancel each other out thus making all of this irrelevant.