In last night’s college basketball game, Michigan State beat Wisconsin in overtime.  What is interesting is the crazy clock controversy that erupted during the game.  The problem?  Two clocks showing two different times and a game tying three-pointer that never was.

Take a look at a news account of it.  What is interesting to me is that the rules tell the refs to use the clock on the backboard, which would normally make things cut and dried.  And that’s how they ruled it.  Sounds right.  The Wisconsin player can see that easier than he can see the scoreboard.  Perfect sense.

Except that the buzzer and the lights went off with the scoreboard, not the backboard clock.  The player is trying to beat the buzzer, which he did.  And he sank the shot.

There is a reason they have rules like this one to follow the one clock over the other.  It settles controversies exactly like this one.  I feel confident that the refs made the right decision and that they followed the right rule.

Except that it doesn’t feel exactly right, does it?  It feels a little hinky.  That player gets the ball, turns, shoots, the ball is out of his hands, the scoreboard lights up, the buzzer goes off and the ball sails through the air majestically to, through, the hoop.  It feels a little like cheating to take that away.  A player doesn’t just have the clock, he has abstract clues like lights and sounds.  Without those, the brain doesn’t really process what is happening.  In this way, the two clocks are less relevant than the lights and sounds being set to the wrong clock.  It feels as if this player followed the rules of the game and was let down by an arbitrary ruling.

What do you think?  Are rules as clear as we think?  What if they are a bit squishier than we take them for?