Should This Free Throw Count? (Video)

[JRutledge]

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]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

How do you know he got it wrong?

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

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

The shot counts in HS and NCAA.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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]

Originally Posted by AremRed

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

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]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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]

Originally Posted by Dad

Remember to hit play.

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

Please explain.

[Dad]

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Dad

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]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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]

Originally Posted by Rich

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."