We already have a shot clock buzzer. Why not let the clock operator handle 5 sec calls on inbounds and 10 sec backcourt calls? Take some of the human error and variation out of it. It's a got to be tough for officials to watch the play AND count in a consistent manner. Let's make this thing fair for all.
Let the guy with the clock do the timing. What a concept. Seriously, this is a good idea. This way, we can be sure that there's no inconsistent timing.
The problem is the "clock guy" is sitting at mid-court and the play in question was in the corner. He would have a horrible seat to make an accurate call. The closest person to every inbounds is the ref.
isn't the issue the stroke mechanics of the ref? when the inbounding (or dribbling player) sees (and perhaps counts) the strokes he knows how much time he has left....? in Sunday's case I see 4 strokes and then a timeout called at commencement of the 5th... if the protest is made and the crew goes to video the TO would be allowed
This is an excellent idea. I don't see how the clock operator can screw it up any more than he does already. The ref brings his hand down and the operator starts the clock, just like on the court when the ball is touched. You might have some errant buzzers here and there but so what.
How can you say a ref's stroke of the arm is less accurate than a clock? Vegas will never go for this.
Because this is basically never a problem. Before Sunday, when is the last time you saw a problem with a 5-second call? It just adds more work for the clock operator for no reason.
How about they put a red light on his head and a button on his *** to start the count, then if you signal for timeout before the ref lights up you are ok. Or how about getting a ref that can count to 5. After all he is swinging his stinking arm. Oh and the player gets to push the start button. And by rule if the ref signals 5 seconds before he lights up, you get to kick the crap out of his button.
The reason we aren't in an Anaheim isn't because a ref's arm count didn't take exactly 1.00000 seconds per count. It's because a ref IGNORED HIS OWN COUNT THAT CORRECTLY SAID 5 SECONDS HADN'T ELAPSED YET.
