Bad Time for the Clock to Stop

[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).

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

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

I suppose it could be read that way. I read to to say that when he got to 5 and called it, he looked up ans it was stopped at 1.6, which didn't make sense.

[Rob1968]

I find it interesting that Case Book 5.10.1 SITUATION B states:". . . There is no provision for the correction of an error made in the official's accuracy in counting seconds."

. . .Kinda makes all our machinations on the subject moot, don't ya think? . . .

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Rob1968

I find it interesting that Case Book 5.10.1 SITUATION B states:". . . There is no provision for the correction of an error made in the official's accuracy in counting seconds."

. . .Kinda makes all our machinations on the subject moot, don't ya think? . . .

Different issue.

That is covering the case where an official calls a count-based infraction too soon or too late, such as calling a 10 second count after either 8 or 12 seconds have properly elapsed on the clock. The case play is saying that the violation stands regardless of information that indicates that the count is inaccurate.

It is silent about changing the clock to match the official's count when there is no evidence that the clock was started/stopped incorrectly aside from it being different than the officials count.

[Rob1968]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Different issue.

That is covering the case where an official calls a count-based infraction too soon or too late, such as calling a 10 second count after either 8 or 12 seconds have properly elapsed on the clock. The case play is saying that the violation stands regardless of information that indicates that the count is inaccurate.

It is silent about changing the clock to match the official's count when there is no evidence that the clock was started/stopped incorrectly aside from it being different than the officials count.

I'm aware of the specific context of the Case play involved.
It seems the discussion here is in regards to a coach or other party thinking that a correction must be made, and the procedure to make such correction.
5.10.1 A refers to the rule, and having "definite information." 5.10.1 D and 5.10.2 refer to "definite knowledge."
Still, the entire rule allows for the less than accurate counting by the covering official, to serve as "definite information/knowledge," and on the less than perfect operation of the timing device and its control, by the Timer, as being precise.
Thus, elements of less than perfect precision are inherently part of the entire process, but by rhetoric are accepted as accurate.

It seems that the time-worn phrase applies: "Sometimes ya just gotta officiate the game."