The Official Forum

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)
-   Basketball (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/)
-   -   Should This Free Throw Count? (Video) (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/100548-should-free-throw-count-video.html)

JRutledge Fri Dec 25, 2015 04:07pm

This is a judgment call just like any other call we make throughout the game. If you want to debate every one of those, be my guest, but that might be a tedious exercise. Good luck with that.

Peace

Camron Rust Fri Dec 25, 2015 05:58pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by JRutledge (Post 974129)
This is a judgment call just like any other call we make throughout the game. If you want to debate every one of those, be my guest, but that might be a tedious exercise. Good luck with that.

Peace

It is only a judgement cal if it is about whether it hit the wire above the basket or not. If the official is ruing that the ball is dead because it hit the top of the backboard, that is a rule error, not a judgement call.

Rich Fri Dec 25, 2015 06:01pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Camron Rust (Post 974154)
It is only a judgement cal if it is about whether it hit the wire above the basket or not. If the official is ruing that the ball is dead because it hit the top of the backboard, that is a rule error, not a judgement call.

I don't disagree.

But when I kill one of these, I point, and point and that's it. Not enough for a partner to say I screwed the pooch.

AremRed Fri Dec 25, 2015 06:12pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by bob jenkins (Post 974122)
How do you know he got it wrong?

Cuz you said so and I hear to "always listen to bob". :D

Quote:

Originally Posted by bob jenkins (Post 973862)
The shot counts in HS and NCAA.


JRutledge Fri Dec 25, 2015 06:13pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Camron Rust (Post 974154)
It is only a judgement cal if it is about whether it hit the wire above the basket or not. If the official is ruing that the ball is dead because it hit the top of the backboard, that is a rule error, not a judgement call.

But if the official making the call thinks it did, it is like arguing if the pivot foot was moved on a ball handler that would cause a travel. We do not question those calls on a regular basis either. And I see a lot of those calls reversed and traveling calls are rules based as well.

Peace

just another ref Fri Dec 25, 2015 06:20pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by JRutledge (Post 974164)
But if the official making the call thinks it did, it is like arguing if the pivot foot was moved on a ball handler that would cause a travel. We do not question those calls on a regular basis either.


No, but if a travel was called during a throw-in, you might.

JRutledge Fri Dec 25, 2015 06:29pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by just another ref (Post 974167)
No, but if a travel was called during a throw-in, you might.

I wouldn't, because people call a designated spot violation and use the wrong signal.

Peace

just another ref Fri Dec 25, 2015 06:35pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by JRutledge (Post 974169)
I wouldn't, because people call a designated spot violation and use the wrong signal.

Peace

That's the reason I said might. The point is, if the official makes a call which is impossible, added information from a partner may justified. In the OP, I don't see a wire or any hardware anywhere near where the ball hit, so if one was ever to interject, this might be a likely spot.

bob jenkins Fri Dec 25, 2015 09:26pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by AremRed (Post 974162)
Cuz you said so and I hear to "always listen to bob". :D

Oh -- so it's based on video review.

Then, if both C and T are watching, sure -- you should tell him what you have and why.

If both aren't watching, then it depends on the relationship between the officials.

If it's during the game, not so much.

Dad Sat Dec 26, 2015 01:19am

Quote:

Originally Posted by just another ref (Post 974170)
That's the reason I said might. The point is, if the official makes a call which is impossible, added information from a partner may justified. In the OP, I don't see a wire or any hardware anywhere near where the ball hit, so if one was ever to interject, this might be a likely spot.

Remember to hit play.

just another ref Sat Dec 26, 2015 01:41am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dad (Post 974194)
Remember to hit play.


That's so clever it sailed right over my head.

Please explain.

Dad Sat Dec 26, 2015 11:16am

http://i.imgur.com/UDpB57H.png

just another ref Sat Dec 26, 2015 12:46pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dad (Post 974207)

I stand corrected. It is near, but whatever that is appears to be behind the board, so I still don't think it touched.

Rich Sat Dec 26, 2015 12:48pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by just another ref (Post 974213)
I stand corrected. It is near, but whatever that is appears to be behind the board, so I still don't think it touched.

And that's why you do nothing as the C -- you "don't think it touched." Not "there's no way in hell that touched anything."

just another ref Sat Dec 26, 2015 02:09pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich (Post 974214)
And that's why you do nothing as the C -- you "don't think it touched." Not "there's no way in hell that touched anything."

The problem here is three dimensional stuff in a two dimensional photograph. The ball never even gets on top of the board. If I was there I could see how it was put together, and if it's like I think it is, I'd know if there was "no way in hell."


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:40pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1