Bad Time for the Clock to Stop

[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.

[Camron Rust]

I'm not using my count to make the change or a fraction of a second in either direction. Accuracy across 5 or 10 seconds is just not high enough to correct such small differences.

If after starting a count at 5.3, someone gets to 5 and the clock still shows 1.6, one of a few things happened: the count was fast, the official observed the wrong time, the clock started late, or the clock stopped early. If the clock was already running, it can't be that the clock started late. It is very unlikely that clock stopped early. It happens but 99% of the clock errors deal with the starting of the clock or not stopping it in time.

So, that leaves us with two most probable options that are both mistakes by the official.

Regardless of the difference in the count vs what came off the clocks, if you don't know that it was not running at a time when it should have been, I don't think you can say that it is an obvious timing mistake when the difference is on the order of 1 second.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

It is very unlikely that clock stopped early.

I thought it was a given in the OP that the clock stopped early. If not, I agree with you.

And, I had the clock start early (when a missed FT hit the floor, and not when the ball was touched) this week. The ball was then immediately batted out of bounds. I saw the clock start early, saw the time when the ball was touched, and saw the time when the ball hit OOB. I took .5 off the time when the FT was shot, reset the clock, and off we went.

Were my observations correct? I think so. WOuld someone else have observed something different? Possibly.

(And, it all happened with < 10 seconds to go in the quarter).

[deecee]

Originally Posted by Coach Bill

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.

You just don't get it. None of us here can explain it to you because you suffer from "you know everything".

The rules allow for some "human" discrepancy from when the official blows the clock dead to when it ACTUALLY stopped. For most of us it a few tenths to maybe even a half a second.

In the second instance the timer said they stopped it when they heard the whistle and that accounts for a .3 second differential. We can live with that. IF the time says they stopped it before then we change it. You are not going to see a 1 second lag in this instance. In my experience it's about .1-.3.

Your pseudo gibberish science and logic does not work here. It will not work in any game I work, and it makes no sense. You can try and confuse things but it doesn't work.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by deecee

You just don't get it. None of us here can explain it to you because you suffer from "you know everything".

The rules allow for some "human" discrepancy from when the official blows the clock dead to when it ACTUALLY stopped. For most of us it a few tenths to maybe even a half a second.

Actually, the rules don't. Lag time, where it was acceptable for the clock to run slightly after the whistle, was taken out of the rules several years ago. Now, the clock is expected to be stopped on the whistle. If the official observes ANY time that elapses from the clock after the whistle that time is to be restored.

Originally Posted by deecee

In the second instance the timer said they stopped it when they heard the whistle and that accounts for a .3 second differential. We can live with that. IF the time says they stopped it before then we change it. You are not going to see a 1 second lag in this instance. In my experience it's about .1-.3.

That, too, is incorrect. The situation referenced in the second part of that case has nothing whatsoever to do with the clock being stopped shortly after the whistle. If that were the case, it would have to have run to too long to 1.2, not stopped early at 1.8. Instead, is talking about the situation where the clock stops exactly on the whistle for a 5 count but less than 5 came off the clock. It is referring to the official's count being official even if it is not precise. It is saying that the the clock is not corrected because, even though the official's count was too fast and is considered official, no error was made with the clock since it was started correctly and stopped correctly (on the whistle). The official's count was just too fast.

Originally Posted by deecee

Your pseudo gibberish science and logic does not work here. It will not work in any game I work, and it makes no sense. You can try and confuse things but it doesn't work.

If you're going to jump someone's case, you should at least be right.

[Coach Bill]

Originally Posted by deecee

You just don't get it. None of us here can explain it to you because you suffer from "you know everything".

The rules allow for some "human" discrepancy from when the official blows the clock dead to when it ACTUALLY stopped. For most of us it a few tenths to maybe even a half a second.

In the second instance the timer said they stopped it when they heard the whistle and that accounts for a .3 second differential. We can live with that. IF the time says they stopped it before then we change it. You are not going to see a 1 second lag in this instance. In my experience it's about .1-.3.

Your pseudo gibberish science and logic does not work here. It will not work in any game I work, and it makes no sense. You can try and confuse things but it doesn't work.

I do get it. Did you read my post??!! What you said is exactly what I said. In the first instance change it, in the second instance, make no change. So, we must suffer from the same thing. My only point has been - ask the timer.

[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.