correctable error

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Nevadaref
[/B]

I simply have a problem deciding in which quarter the FTs were ACTUALLY shot. We agree that the 2nd quarter has ended before they were shot, but since they were attempted before the halftime intermission, I just can't believe that they were part of the 3rd quarter. Based soley upon when the officials administered them, I would have to say that they took place in the 2nd quarter. The officials certainly treated it like that. Look at the last part of 5-6-4, "the free throws are attempted immediately, as if the foul had been part of the preceding quarter." This is what was done. Agreed?

This reasoning for excluding them from the 3rd quarter seems quite compelling to me. But so does the argument that they were shot after the 2nd quarter ended. So when the heck were they attempted????

Tell me if you think they were part of the 2nd or 3rd quarter.

[/B][/QUOTE]From the original post, the T was given to an assistant coach after the buzzer. There was no other "related activity" that would have delayed the ending of the second quarter. Therefore the buzzer (horn) definitely ended the second quarter. The exceptions in articles 1,2 & 3 of R 5-6 therefore aren't germane or applicable. This sitch completely fits the description of R5-6-4 though- "If a technical foul occurs AFTER the ball has become DEAD to END a quarter...". Iow, all of the activity related to this situation occurred AFTER the second quarter ended- the T, the FT's, and the throw-in. None of them can possibly be part of the previous quarter then.

Btw, what wasn't clear was whether the timer had or had not started timing the intermission before the assistant coach got the T. An indirect T possibly being charged to the head coach depends on that information.

[Nevadaref]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
From the original post, the T was given to an assistant coach after the buzzer. There was no other "related activity" that would have delayed the ending of the second quarter. Therefore the buzzer (horn) definitely ended the second quarter. The exceptions in articles 1,2 & 3 of R 5-6 therefore aren't germane or applicable. This sitch completely fits the description of R5-6-4 though- "If a technical foul occurs AFTER the ball has become DEAD to END a quarter...". Iow, all of the activity related to this situation occurred AFTER the second quarter ended- the T, the FT's, and the throw-in. None of them can possibly be part of the previous quarter then.

JR,
I agree with this 100%. That is clearly the rule and what SHOULD have been done. Unfortunately, it is not what WAS done. That is why I think we have to go to the arrow.
Note that after what you quoted 5-6-4 continues: "...or extra period, the next quarter or extra period is started by administering the free throws." The officials didn't do that. Well, at least not the first time around, I'm not even going to debate their wiping off the original shots and reshooting them.
My whole point is, given that the officials shot the technical foul free throws before the intermission AS IF they were part of the 2nd quarter, even though we know that they 2nd quarter had already ended and that they weren't supposed to be part of it, must we now consider them to have in fact been part of the 2nd quarter? I think so.

If you could just focus on that issue and tell me which quarter you believe the FTs were a part of given when the officials administered them, I would be happy. Thanks.

[cmathews]

Shooting them before the teams go to intermission, while probably a little strange proceduraly, has no bearing on whether they were part of the 2nd quarter. The quarter and all related activity had ended. The fact that they shot them at the beginning of a long uncharged "time out" really doesn't change the fact that part of the penalty is to get the ball at mid court, because I think we can all agree that the T was issued after the 2nd quarter and all related activity. If that is the case then we are in the 3rd quarter as far as penalties are concerned. IMHO

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Nevadaref

If you could just focus on that issue and tell me which quarter you believe the FTs were a part of given when the officials administered them, I would be happy.

I've already answered that- several times. The problem seems to be that you don't like that answer because it doesn't agree with yours. The FT's were NOT part of the 2nd quarter- in either case. The officials shot them at the wrong end of the intermission, but that doesn't change the fact that they were NOT part of the second quarter by rule. The officials then screwed up by trying to correct something that didn't have to be corrected in the first place, and wasn't correctible by rule anyway. Even though they did screw up and re-shoot the FT's, the end result was that the team did get the 2 FT's that they had coming to them. Why would you now want the officials to completely screw up and give out an AP that isn't justified by any rule in the book?

Also see CMathews' reply.It basically says the same as my response above, but I wanted to add a coupla thoughts.

[Nevadaref]

Well, JR, while I can see your point about the free throws not being part of the 2nd quarter, I don't buy that they were part of the 3rd quarter either. They were shot before the intermission, and I did quote a rule that states the 10 minute intermission takes place between the halves. To me this means the FTs can't be considered part of the 2nd half/third quarter. They simply were shot too early.
We each have some solid rules on our side in this case. Maybe the FTs took place out of space and time in the Twilight Zone.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Nevadaref
They were shot before the intermission, and I did quote a rule that states the 10 minute intermission takes place between the halves.

Unfortunately, Nevada, the FT's were shot AFTER the second quarter ENDED. That's all that matters. The rule that you cited isn't relevant in any way. Rule 5-6-4 covers the situation. There is absolutely no rules justification for you to do what you want to do.

[RookieDude]

I'll get in here late if you guys don't mind.

Just a thought.
Since the officials screwed up and administered the FT's before intermission, or during it if the clock had already started, could it be argued that the administraion of FT's did in fact make this a part of the second quarter?

Maybe this is apples and oranges...but the final score is not approved untill the officials leave the confines of the court.
The officials had not left the confines of the court for the intermission...could Nevada argue that since the officials had not left and administered the FT's, that this would all be activity during the second quarter?

Just adding a little fuel...

[Nevadaref]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Unfortunately, Nevada, the FT's were shot AFTER the second quarter ENDED. That's all that matters. The rule that you cited isn't relevant in any way. Rule 5-6-4 covers the situation. There is absolutely no rules justification for you to do what you want to do.

Yeah, but tell me when the 3rd quarter began! Did it really begin before halftime?

[Nevadaref]

Originally posted by RookieDude
I'll get in here late if you guys don't mind.

Just a thought.
Since the officials screwed up and administered the FT's before intermission, or during it if the clock had already started, could it be argued that the administraion of FT's did in fact make this a part of the second quarter?

That is EXACTLY what I am saying! The officials mistake, not the rules made the FTs for the T part of the 2nd quarter. Therefore, we have to go to the arrow to start the 3rd.

Originally posted by RookieDude

Maybe this is apples and oranges...but the final score is not approved untill the officials leave the confines of the court.
The officials had not left the confines of the court for the intermission...could Nevada argue that since the officials had not left and administered the FT's, that this would all be activity during the second quarter?

Just adding a little fuel...

It wasn't the argument that I originally picked, but you may have something here as one of the Referee's duties is to verify the score at the end of each HALF. So if they shoot the FTs then go to the table and pick up their jackets, switch the AP arrow, and verify the score, I think that you have to consider the points if any from the FTs to be part of the 2nd quarter! It will be interesting to see what JR says about that. I'm sure he'll shoot it down somehow.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Nevadaref

[/B]

It wasn't the argument that I originally picked, but you may have something here as one of the Referee's duties is to verify the score at the end of each HALF. So if they shoot the FTs then go to the table and pick up their jackets, switch the AP arrow, and verify the score, I think that you have to consider the points if any from the FTs to be part of the 2nd quarter! It will be interesting to see what JR says about that. I'm sure he'll shoot it down somehow.
[/B][/QUOTE]
If the officials verify the score at the END of a half, you're trying to tell me that they are really verifying the score IN the second quarter? Great argument, guys. Not too logical, though. Somehow I don't think that I'm gonna buy that particular scenario.

Same point, guys, for the umpteenth time. The second quarter ENDED!!!! The second quarter ENDED, by rule!!!! AFTER the second quarter ENDED, the T was handed out. AFTER the second quarter ENDED, the FT's for the T were taken- in BOTH cases. The throw-in part of the penalty for the T was administered by rule also- specifically Rule 5-6-4 AND case book play 6.3.1SitB. There is NO rule that will allow you to use an AP to start the 3rd quarter in this situation.

Is that the casebook play that you were looking for, Nevada?


[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Mar 17th, 2004 at 01:07 AM]

[jeffpea]

Nevadaref -- Using your logic, if the same scenario occurred after time expired in the 4th quarter and the officials did the same thing (mistakenly administered the technical FT's before the 1 minute "intermission" prior to the beginning of overtime), would the made FT's count towards the score in the 4th quarter? Of course not. Those points would count towards the overtime period. The officials would still administer the throw-in penalty to start the over-time period.
The only situation that applies, using your thought process, is if you had a foul on a shot that was released before the clock expired at the end of the quarter and needed to shoot FT's. Then you have a T before you administer the FT's (remember the quarter has not ended until all FT's or penalties are administered). You would shoot the common foul FT(s), then the T FT's. The quarter has then ended and you cannot carry the throw-in penalty to the next period, so you go to AP arrow.
Does that make sense to you?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by jeffpea
Nevadaref -- Using your logic, if the same scenario occurred after time expired in the 4th quarter and the officials did the same thing (mistakenly administered the technical FT's before the 1 minute "intermission" prior to the beginning of overtime), would the made FT's count towards the score in the 4th quarter? Of course not. Those points would count towards the overtime period. The officials would still administer the throw-in penalty to start the over-time period.

I agree with the above IF the score was tied at the end of the fourth quarter, and you were gonna play an OT. If the game wasn't tied, you only administer the FT's for the T if those FT's would affect the outcome of the game. These FT's then WOULD be a part of the 4th quarter, and if an OT then becomes necessary, that OT WOULD start with a jump ball. Casebook play 5.6CommentB.

[Nevadaref]

Originally posted by jeffpea
Nevadaref -- Using your logic, if the same scenario occurred after time expired in the 4th quarter and the officials did the same thing (mistakenly administered the technical FT's before the 1 minute "intermission" prior to the beginning of overtime), would the made FT's count towards the score in the 4th quarter? Of course not. Those points would count towards the overtime period. The officials would still administer the throw-in penalty to start the over-time period.
The only situation that applies, using your thought process, is if you had a foul on a shot that was released before the clock expired at the end of the quarter and needed to shoot FT's. Then you have a T before you administer the FT's (remember the quarter has not ended until all FT's or penalties are administered). You would shoot the common foul FT(s), then the T FT's. The quarter has then ended and you cannot carry the throw-in penalty to the next period, so you go to AP arrow.
Does that make sense to you?

Jeff,
Did you read the whole thread? This argument has nothing to do with the either JR's or my understanding of what the rules are. We agree on that. What we don't agree upon is in which quarter the FTs were actually shot. We both clearly agree upon what should have been done.
Now to your own rules knowledge. First read 5-5-1. While paying particular attention to when it states the intermissions shall take place. Secondly, your example with the FTs occurring at the end of the 4th quarter is not quite accurate because when they should be attempted by rule depends upon what the score is. If the game is tied is the only case in which they are to be attempted as part of the OT period. If the score is not tied, the FTs are either not attempted at all because they won't affect the outcome, or they are attempted immediately and treated as if they are part of the preceeding period, and how many are successful will determine the necessity of OT or not.

So let's assume we have a situation where the game is tied the 4th quarter ends and then a team receives a technical foul BEFORE the timer starts the one minute intermission. If the officials incorrectly administer the FTs before this intermission period takes place, should they be considered part of the 4th quarter or part of the OT? I think that if you took two attorneys and put them in front of a judge to argue what the Rules Book says about this, that the ruling would come down--the officials screwed up and the FTs now have to be considered part of the 4th quarter, so if either one of them is successful the game is over. Bad job officials. That's the theoretical side.
In practice, if I ever found myself in that situation on the court I would purposely go against my belief of what the Rules Book says and continue the game by going to OT. Why? because if I didn't I don't believe that I would ever be allowed on the court again. Not sure what I would do with the arrow. If both free throws were missed, I might very well start the OT with a jump ball because I believe that is correct based upon when the FTs were mistakenly attempted.
As for your last paragraph: yeah, I know how to handle that play, but what does it have to do with our discussion here about officials administering FTs at the improper time?

And saving the best for last:
JR, you have told me numerous times that the 2nd quarter was over (I even agreed that is was over), but you still haven't told me when you think the 3rd quarter started in this game in question. Try looking at it from that view. If you cannot tell me for sure that the FTs were attempted after the 3rd quarter began (not in the twilight zone), then you cannot also give the offended team the possession. I have a hard time believing that we took a ten minute break during the 3rd quarter! That's a laughable situation.



[Edited by Nevadaref on Mar 17th, 2004 at 01:54 AM]

[cloverdale]

reguarding the original post this is my take...according to rule 5 sec 6 art 4...they should have shot the f/t at the beginning of the 3rd and gave possession at the division line...since they didnt, would rule 2 sec 10 art 5 be reason not to reshoot the f/t and just start the game with the inbounding at division line ?

[Nevadaref]

Originally posted by cloverdale
reguarding the original post this is my take...according to rule 5 sec 6 art 4...they should have shot the f/t at the beginning of the 3rd and gave possession at the division line...since they didnt, would rule 2 sec 10 art 5 be reason not to reshoot the f/t and just start the game with the inbounding at division line ?

Since the situation in the original post is not a correctable error, I would have to say no.