Bonus not double bonus

[frezer11]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

But what would be your remedy for such an error? What would you write in the rule book to "rectify" the situation?

If I were to add something (not sure of the wording) I would add it as a sub point to 2.3, something to the effect of the referee has the power to correct a clearly incorrect scenario not described elsewhere in the rules.

Anyone a football official? I read once that the NFL (maybe college and high school too) has some rule provision for a "palpably unfair act" for the scenario where a player is clearly going to score a touchdown, and then is tackled by someone who ran off the bench. In that situation, a touchdown can be awarded rather than the unsportsmanlike, even though the ball never crossed the goal line. I sort of liken the basketball scenario to this. We may want to right an obvious wrong (even though we are the guilty party) but as of now there is no rule that allows us to do such.

[BlueDevilRef]

Originally Posted by frezer11

If I were to add something (not sure of the wording) I would add it as a sub point to 2.3, something to the effect of the referee has the power to correct a clearly incorrect scenario not described elsewhere in the rules.

Anyone a football official? I read once that the NFL (maybe college and high school too) has some rule provision for a "palpably unfair act" for the scenario where a player is clearly going to score a touchdown, and then is tackled by someone who ran off the bench. In that situation, a touchdown can be awarded rather than the unsportsmanlike, even though the ball never crossed the goal line. I sort of liken the basketball scenario to this. We may want to right an obvious wrong (even though we are the guilty party) but as of now there is no rule that allows us to do such.

Yeah, what he said.


I wish I had a cool signature

[Adam]

Originally Posted by frezer11

If I were to add something (not sure of the wording) I would add it as a sub point to 2.3, something to the effect of the referee has the power to correct a clearly incorrect scenario not described elsewhere in the rules.

Anyone a football official? I read once that the NFL (maybe college and high school too) has some rule provision for a "palpably unfair act" for the scenario where a player is clearly going to score a touchdown, and then is tackled by someone who ran off the bench. In that situation, a touchdown can be awarded rather than the unsportsmanlike, even though the ball never crossed the goal line. I sort of liken the basketball scenario to this. We may want to right an obvious wrong (even though we are the guilty party) but as of now there is no rule that allows us to do such.

I think it could be done more specifically. This is a very specific scenario that is a close fit to 2.10 already. Easy fix, really.

1. Declare that incorrectly announcing 2 shots qualifies as having awarded an unmerited free throw.
2. State that in the precise scenario, time should be placed back on the clock because the ball is retroactively declared dead when the first FT was missed.

There may be flaws in my logic, but I think they can be easily resolved.

[frezer11]

Originally Posted by Adam

I think it could be done more specifically. This is a very specific scenario that is a close fit to 2.10 already. Easy fix, really.

1. Declare that incorrectly announcing 2 shots qualifies as having awarded an unmerited free throw.
2. State that in the precise scenario, time should be placed back on the clock because the ball is retroactively declared dead when the first FT was missed.

There may be flaws in my logic, but I think they can be easily resolved.

I agree, and maybe even some provision that this only applies when there is less than a minute in the 2nd or 4th quarters, as that is the only time when time running off the clock might have an effect. If this happens with 6 minutes left in the game, putting 2 seconds back on the clock is not necessary.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Adam

I think it could be done more specifically. This is a very specific scenario that is a close fit to 2.10 already. Easy fix, really.

1. Declare that incorrectly announcing 2 shots qualifies as having awarded an unmerited free throw.
2. State that in the precise scenario, time should be placed back on the clock because the ball is retroactively declared dead when the first FT was missed.

There may be flaws in my logic, but I think they can be easily resolved.

I don't agree and believe that you are potentially causing more problems. Retroactively declaring anything which isn't actually called during a basketball game is potential for disaster.

[billyu2]

Originally Posted by Adam

I think it could be done more specifically. This is a very specific scenario that is a close fit to 2.10 already. Easy fix, really.

1. Declare that incorrectly announcing 2 shots qualifies as having awarded an unmerited free throw.
2. State that in the precise scenario, time should be placed back on the clock because the ball is retroactively declared dead when the first FT was missed.

There may be flaws in my logic, but I think they can be easily resolved.

I like this but; perhaps we already have a basis for putting time back on the clock. In the OP I think we all agree the officials correctly whistled the play dead when the missed FT was caught by a player while other players did not respond. (8.6.1) Yes, a second + elapsed but as Fundamental #16 says, "the whistle seldom causes the ball to become dead (it is already dead)" when the first FT was missed.

[BigCat]

It may sound good and feel like it is the right thing to put time on the clock BUT….
1. Who would have gotten the rebound had proper info been given??? Don't really know for sure. Likely defense, but not always…
2. Who has the arrow? maybe offense. maybe defense. Suppose it is offense. Defense gets most FT rebounds but not all. So maybe the defense would have gotten the rebound but the arrow favors offense. Offense gets ball under basket and you are going to give them more time. Defense screwed cause they would have gotten rebound. more screwed cause you now add time. Just an example.

If we SCREW up. Somebody IS going to get SCREWED. We just have to concentrate and communicate…always but especially at end of game. It may sound like the right thing to do but you may be making things worse…without rule support.

[billyu2]

Originally Posted by BigCat

It may sound good and feel like it is the right thing to put time on the clock BUT….
1. Who would have gotten the rebound had proper info been given??? Don't really know for sure. Likely defense, but not always…
2. Who has the arrow? maybe offense. maybe defense. Suppose it is offense. Defense gets most FT rebounds but not all. So maybe the defense would have gotten the rebound but the arrow favors offense. Offense gets ball under basket and you are going to give them more time. Defense screwed cause they would have gotten rebound. more screwed cause you now add time. Just an example.

If we SCREW up. Somebody IS going to get SCREWED. We just have to concentrate and communicate…always but especially at end of game. It may sound like the right thing to do but you may be making things worse…without rule support.

Not giving them anything. Just saying, if Rule Fundamental #16 would apply, time would be put back with rule support.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by billyu2

Not giving them anything. Just saying, if Rule Fundamental #16 would apply, time would be put back with rule support.

Somebody chopped in time. clock started. rebound. uh oh(error recognized). Whistle. Clock stopped. The whistle stops the clock. 8.6 cites 2-3 and 2-10. 2-3 because it isn't a correctable error. It's close so they cite 2-10 also. As Johnny D said 4 pages ago, 2-10-5 says consumed time isn't nullified.

This play is monumentally screwed up when you tell the players 2 shots. Putting time on the clock may sound like the right thing to do but see my example above. You could be doing more harm. If a screw up happens we just have to own it. Don't let it happen.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BigCat

Somebody chopped in time. clock started. rebound. uh oh(error recognized). Whistle. Clock stopped. The whistle stops the clock. 8.6 cites 2-3 and 2-10. 2-3 because it isn't a correctable error. It's close so they cite 2-10 also. As Johnny D said 4 pages ago, 2-10-5 says consumed time isn't nullified.

This play is monumentally screwed up when you tell the players 2 shots. Putting time on the clock may sound like the right thing to do but see my example above. You could be doing more harm. If a screw up happens we just have to own it. Don't let it happen.

Who said the clock was chopped?

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by BigCat

Somebody chopped in time. clock started. rebound. uh oh(error recognized). Whistle. Clock stopped. The whistle stops the clock. 8.6 cites 2-3 and 2-10. 2-3 because it isn't a correctable error. It's close so they cite 2-10 also. As Johnny D said 4 pages ago, 2-10-5 says consumed time isn't nullified.

This play is monumentally screwed up when you tell the players 2 shots. Putting time on the clock may sound like the right thing to do but see my example above. You could be doing more harm. If a screw up happens we just have to own it. Don't let it happen.

The clock wouldn't have been chopped in this play. The officials thought it was 2 shots. The clock was improperly started, which is why I could see putting the time back on the clock.