Bad Time for the Clock to Stop
 

This happened in my game tonight, High School Varsity Boys. Visitors make a basket to pull within 3 with time running out. They do not have any timeouts remaining. Ball goes through the basket home team takes the ball to inbound. I am the lead-becoming new trail. I start my count and I see 5.3 seconds on the clock. I get to 5 seconds the only problem is that the timer for some reason stopped the clock at 1.6! What do you do? I will wait for some responses before I share what our crew did.

If you mean you saw 5.3 at the start of your count you put .3 on the clock and give the ball to Team B. If you mean you saw the 5.3 at some point during the count, do the math and put up the appropriate number.

We've discussed this exact situation many times before on this forum. It is an obvious timing mistake which can be corrected by the referee through definite knowledge obtained by an official's count.
It isn't a convenient time for a timing error, but it should be handled just as if it occurred during the second quarter.

First of all, good move on the part of the scoring team. It's kind of like a football team up by more than two taking a safety in the closing seconds when they're backed up near their own goal line.

But I digress. OP had a five second violation, correct? If so, Nevadaref is spot-on. 5.3 - 5 = 0.3. If anything, officials tend to count a little slower than real time, so you can say with conservative confidence that at least five seconds ticked off.

True, we talk about this kind of situation a lot. But it happens all the time, and there are a lot of opinions on how to handle it (many of them not in accordance with the rules, unfortunately). So it needs to be discussed often.

We put 0.3 on the clock and gave the ball to Team B.

And then they tapped in a three-pointer to tie it up, right? :D

5.10.1e

Fortunately NO!

Let's Go to The Videotape ...
 

5.10.1 SITUATION E: Team A scores a goal to lead by four points with 10 seconds
remaining in the fourth quarter. Team B then quickly scores with approximately
five seconds remaining; now trailing by two points. Team A expects to
withhold the ball out of bounds for the throw-in with the time remaining (less
than five seconds). The timer mistakenly stops the clock shortly following the
Team B goal; the game clock reads 4.0 seconds remaining. The official sounds
the whistle, (a) immediately to address the timing mistake; (b) after reaching a
throw-in count of three to address the timing mistake; or (c) upon reaching a fivesecond
throw-in count on Team A. RULING: In (a) and (b), Team A will have a
throw-in from anywhere along the end line with (a) no change to the game clock;
and (b) the game clock corrected to display 1.0 seconds. In (c), the game is over
as time has expired. COMMENT: An official’s count may be used to correct a timing
mistake. (5-10-2)

So would this be a mistake on the official's part? Say the home team scores with 8 seconds left and they trail by 1 with no timeouts left. The home team scorer (innocently) stops the clock anticipating a timeout, or (not so innocently) stops it just to stop it.

A good official's gonna look at the clock once the ball goes through. But if he sees it FREEZE at 8 seconds, should he wait a brief reasonable amount of time, say, 3 seconds, before starting his count? Then maybe when he gets to 4 blow the whistle to fix the clock?

It just seems odd that if you fix it right away, you are putting one team at a major disadvantage, and, worst case scenario, rewarding possible shenanigans.

I know the casebook says to ignore an intentional Delay of Game by a player who's just trying to get the clock stopped at the end of the game. Shouldn't we also then ignore a possible delay by the clock operator?

The clock is running, so how sure are you that u see exactly 5.3 seconds? Did u look exactly simultaneous with the start of your count? I'm not sure you could be 100% certain of 5.3. I think it's entirely possible, that a few tenths could have ran off before u saw 5.3, and then u may have counted to 5 a half second early, and the clock could in fact be pretty close to accurate. Do you know they stopped it early, or was it after you blew your whistle? If you do know, how do you know, because I'm sure after the initial glance, you didn't look again until after your whistle blew.

The one thing we do know is that it was wrong for the clock to stop. It won't be perfect, but you correct it best you can.

The officials don't have a video replay monitor or atomic clocks in their heads. If the timer screws up, the officials can only do their human best to correct it.
ALL of the blame in such situations goes to the timer.

I'm asking are u sure the timer screwed up? He looks up after he starts his count and sees 5.3 (so, maybe ~5.8 when he started), then he counts a little fast (~4.5 seconds), that gives u 1.3. Pretty close to 1.6. The OP never said the clock stopped before his whistle, just that he looked up and saw the clock stopped at 1.6. I don't think there was definite knowledge of any error. I don't think one can accurately mark a running clock to the tenths of a second. And, who knows what the visible count was? 4.9, 5.1, 4.5, 5.5?

If he knows the timer stopped it before his whistle, then ok, fix it. Otherwise, like you said, no atomic clock in his head, the time may have continued to run until he blew his whistle. I.e., no error.

Thank you for clarifying. Perhaps the OP will return and answer the questions you've posed.

When the OP says that they did indeed put the .3 on the clock, this tells us that his best impression was 5.3 at the start of the count. Consider this, if there is a "normal" discrepancy between the whistle and the stoppage of the clock, there should be even less time left. Lag/reaction time is normal. Stopping the clock early in anticipation of the violation is unacceptable. One can only assume that he checked with the timer to be sure that the clock did stop before the whistle. If the answer is no, as you say, I don't see a lot of alternative but to say "Oh my gosh, my counting is abysmal!" and proceed from there.

I checked the clock WHEN I started my count. I saw 5.3. I counted to 5 and blew my whistle at which point we realized the clock had stopped prematurely.

Good job.

Clock glance.
 

Great job.

Exactly what you are supposed to do.

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?

2 years in a row HS crews in Virginia have allowed catch and shoot to win games with 0.3 or less on the clock.

Very, very sad. It's a rule that actually makes our lives easier and yet some of us still manage to mess it up.

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.

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.

(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 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.

Any newspaper or internet story on this incident? BTW, this same thing happened in So Cal in playoffs last year and ended the team's season!!

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."

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

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.

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).

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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."

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.

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

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.