As I was watching the Pacers vs Knicks last night with a few close inbounding within the 5 seconds, reminded me how shafted we were vs Creighton when the official allowed over 6 seconds before the TO call. As important as that can be, why have a guy use his head on the 5 second count. There's an official at the scorer's table and a 30 second clock guy. Why not have that handled by the scorer's table official. They refer to the 30 second clock to see if it takes more than 10 seconds to cross half court. I say having that handled away from individuals attempting to count in their head is a good thing.
Thoughts on an official change to the 5 second in bounds
- Thread starter Bluebeard
- Start date
That was brutal. I mentioned elsewhere that if you watch the game replay, McDermott and Scheierman both knew they got away with murder. 🤦♂️
It’s just another manual tradition and isn’t widespread or disruptive enough to create the outcry to change/modernize. They use a clock for everything else yet count those Mississippi’s like a freaking background 6th grade game.
It’s just another manual tradition and isn’t widespread or disruptive enough to create the outcry to change/modernize. They use a clock for everything else yet count those Mississippi’s like a freaking background 6th grade game.
And remember, it's not really 5 seconds it's 4. After the 4th second you cannot call a timeout.
The only thing is that while the 30 second clock is controlled court side (at SHU by the esteemed Joe Walsh), the game clock - which this would be connected to - is stopped and started by the officials through their belt pack
I see lots of controversy about when the clock should start. More trips and delays "going to the monitor." What about 10 second backcourt calls? Are refs correct on those more so than in bound passes?
Seems as if NFL refs often give teams almost an extra second, and they have a clock in front of them.
Seems as if NFL refs often give teams almost an extra second, and they have a clock in front of them.
There are lots of things acceptance of technology could improve but there’s always an initial resistance to technology. Human nature. Once upon a time the TV was evil, and on and on.
I would not be opposed to an inbounds clock that starts at the refs signal.
Also at the end of first Marquette game they missed the 5 sec call late. Marquette threw it away anyway but it could have cost u..
I've thought of this too but I doubt it would happen because you're adding another timing device and for transparency's sake it needs to be visible to players and fans.
Where does this device go? Next to the shot clock? Above it? Is there a way to tie it to the shot clock display -- which potentially creates more confusion if there is limited time on the shot clock? All of this for something that has affected maybe five plays all season.
Let's take this to the logical conclusion. Who administers the three second clock on players camped in the lane? What about those, now rare, five second counts on the perimeter? Do we need separate clocks for all of these situations?
Just have a separate clock on the scorers table and one of the table refs works that one clock when the refs hand goes down with the signal. There are like 10 people at the table now each game. Right now the players can't see the time anywhere and have to count it off in their heads just like the refs do. Whether they can see the clock or not doesn't matter as it would be the same as today. Only matters that the refs enforce the rule by using the separate clock and that one ref can see it. I don't see a significant difference and this is a gazillion dollar enterprise - they can afford a simple clock to sit on the table. Doesn't have to be up on the basket especially if it only happens 5-10 times per game. Its a logical approach to me to add it to the someone's responsibilities that sits at the table (not the shot clock or game clock controller).
Beyond all of that, to me it would be helpful if the refs moved their arm each second like they used to. Its not a real second but at least that was a visual cue. I don't see refs doing that much anymore.
…but also remember that the refs are the ones controlling the game clock.
Much like the 3 second count or the 5 second count, this kind of seems like an imperfect thing.
Much like the 3 second count or the 5 second count, this kind of seems like an imperfect thing.
This can't be done without transparency.
Wait until some road team loses a game because of an inbounds violation and we find out the guy at the table had a quick trigger on the clock or that it wasn't a full five seconds.
In this case, who blows play dead? The guy at the scorer's table with a stopwatch? Does he buzz the ref?
If the NBA did this you know they would have a visible clock because they would want the transparency.
There can be a horn just like a shot clock violation. The on court ref controls and starts the timer just like he does the game clock. The clock is at the scorers table and the official at the table oversees it.
Even the NFL with a prominent play clock often has plays take place after clock reaches 00 without a flag being thrown. I think we are overthinking the inbound play, it works fine as it is, unfortunately some time refs might get it wrong.
Agreed. No reason to overthink something that really hasn't been a problem throughout basketball history. What's next, a clock for counting the 10 seconds for a player to shoot a free throw?
I mentioned this above, have we seen more than five or six plays this season where this proposed clock would have come into play?
I also mentioned in the one of the other threads that in the 2016 BET we drew the benefit of getting a five-second violation that clocked in under five seconds (the famous diamond and one trap that Willard stole from Chris Mack). Nobody complains when we're on the right side of the clock.
We all count slightly differently. One man's five is another's six. For another it's 4.3.
Exactly, so the officials on the court don’t worry about count, the official at the table knows when it finishes. Why justify one wrong with another.
Be nice if the refs went back to counting with their arm like they used to at least so there is something visual.
All the official scorer does is keep a book, which these days is almost a ceremonial position
Last edited:
Similar threads
