The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Basketball

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jul 22, 2004, 10:35pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 19

I was watching a game tonight and the following happened.

With 30 seconds left in a tie game a non shooting foul was called on A1 - Team B was in the bonus. The official reports the foul and is told by the table personnel that it is double bonus and B1 should shot two shots. B1 takes the first shot of the free throws and misses the first attempt. At this point Team A calls a time out. While the official was reporting the time out he is informed by the table personnel that it should have been one and bonus {1-1} not double bonus. [2 shots} At this point in the game what should the officials do.
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jul 22, 2004, 11:03pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Portland, Oregon
Posts: 9,466
Send a message via AIM to rainmaker
Quote:
Originally posted by mtbabo

I was watching a game tonight and the following happened.

With 30 seconds left in a tie game a non shooting foul was called on A1 - Team B was in the bonus. The official reports the foul and is told by the table personnel that it is double bonus and B1 should shot two shots. B1 takes the first shot of the free throws and misses the first attempt. At this point Team A calls a time out. While the official was reporting the time out he is informed by the table personnel that it should have been one and bonus {1-1} not double bonus. [2 shots} At this point in the game what should the officials do.
Go to the arrow. Remind the table to be more careful.
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Fri Jul 23, 2004, 07:01am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 19
Correctable Error????

Can you please give me a reference in the case book or rule book.
Thank you
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Fri Jul 23, 2004, 07:08am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 14,616
NF 2-10 & 2.10
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Fri Jul 23, 2004, 07:42am
In Memoriam
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Hell
Posts: 20,211
Casebook play 8.6.1Sit(a,b) is close enough also to the concept used also.
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Fri Jul 23, 2004, 09:51am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 14,616
Talking Also...

Quote:
Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
Casebook play 8.6.1Sit(a,b) is close enough also to the concept used also.
Also, JR's post is also correct, also!
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Mon Jul 26, 2004, 02:07am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 14,994
because while it is a mistake by the officials/table crew, it is not a correctable error
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old Mon Jul 26, 2004, 04:26am
In Memoriam
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Hell
Posts: 20,211
Quote:
Originally posted by Nevadaref
because while it is a mistake by the officials/table crew, it is not a correctable error
Disagree. It's a correctible error as per rule 2-10-1(b)- "awarding an unmerited free throw".
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old Mon Jul 26, 2004, 11:12pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 14,994
Quote:
Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
Quote:
Originally posted by Nevadaref
because while it is a mistake by the officials/table crew, it is not a correctable error
Disagree. It's a correctible error as per rule 2-10-1(b)- "awarding an unmerited free throw".
JR,
Go back and re-read the original post again. It states that the game is stopped BEFORE the administration of the second free throw for a time-out. It is during this time-out that the officials are told they should have been shooting 1-and-1 not 2. So, all we have is the official giving misinformation to the players on the first FT, just as in the case play you cited. Since they never awarded an unmerited FT, this situation does not qualify as a correctable error.
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old Tue Jul 27, 2004, 12:49am
In Memoriam
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Hell
Posts: 20,211
Quote:
Originally posted by Nevadaref
Quote:
Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
Quote:
Originally posted by Nevadaref
because while it is a mistake by the officials/table crew, it is not a correctable error
Disagree. It's a correctible error as per rule 2-10-1(b)- "awarding an unmerited free throw".
JR,
Go back and re-read the original post again. It states that the game is stopped BEFORE the administration of the second free throw for a time-out. It is during this time-out that the officials are told they should have been shooting 1-and-1 not 2. So, all we have is the official giving misinformation to the players on the first FT, just as in the case play you cited. Since they never awarded an unmerited FT, this situation does not qualify as a correctable error.
Still disagree. Read case book play 2.10.1SitD. Very similar. There's no further actual correction to be made in this case either, which is supposed to be your point, but note the language that is used therein- "Play continues briefly with B1 advancing the ball before the official RECOGNIZES THE ERROR and stops play. Again note the particular word "Error". Then note that the actual heading of this particular case book play is "CORRECTIBLE ERRORS".
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old Tue Jul 27, 2004, 02:33am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 14,994
Quote:
Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
Quote:
Originally posted by Nevadaref
Quote:
Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
Quote:
Originally posted by Nevadaref
because while it is a mistake by the officials/table crew, it is not a correctable error
Disagree. It's a correctible error as per rule 2-10-1(b)- "awarding an unmerited free throw".
JR,
Go back and re-read the original post again. It states that the game is stopped BEFORE the administration of the second free throw for a time-out. It is during this time-out that the officials are told they should have been shooting 1-and-1 not 2. So, all we have is the official giving misinformation to the players on the first FT, just as in the case play you cited. Since they never awarded an unmerited FT, this situation does not qualify as a correctable error.
Still disagree. Read case book play 2.10.1SitD. Very similar. There's no further actual correction to be made in this case either, which is supposed to be your point, but note the language that is used therein- "Play continues briefly with B1 advancing the ball before the official RECOGNIZES THE ERROR and stops play. Again note the particular word "Error". Then note that the actual heading of this particular case book play is "CORRECTIBLE ERRORS".
Hmmmm.... My heading reads "CORRECTABLE ERRORS."

It's not that there's no further actual correction to be made, but that no unmerited free throw ever took place that is my point. I do not believe that an official saying two shots to the table or players on the lane constitutes actually awarding the FTs. I personally believe that a FT has not been awarded until the ball is put at the disposal of the free thrower making it live. Therefore, just as 8.7SitB states, "However, since all merited free throws were attempted it does not constitute a correctable error sitution," this situation should not constitute a correctable error since no unmerited free throw was attempted.


Nevertheless, you highlight an interesting point about diction. We should only use the word error when we are referring to a 2-10 situation, otherwise we should use mistake, wrong, incorrect, etc.

Hence, I think the rules committee should reword and relocate 2.10.1SitD next to 8.6.1.
If we look at 7.5.2SitB (giving the ball to the wrong team for a throw-in) the wording used is "mistake by the official" and it is not correctable. This is the language that should be used in the current 2.10.1SitD; and 8.6.1 should be cleaned-up as well by changing "erroneous information" to "incorrect information."

However, and more importantly, after closely reading the case book, I noticed that this case play (2.10.1 SitD) does not mesh with 8.6.1 (c). While they are indeed very similar game situations the play rulings are different.
In both plays the ball should remain live if the try is unsuccessful, but because the official provides "erroneous information" to the players which indicates otherwise (stating 2 shots) something goofy happens.

Now here's how they differ:
2.10.1SitD makes no mention of the AP arrow at all, while the 8.6.1 instructs us to use the arrow if only one team attempts to rebound.
2.10.1SitD does not specify who attempted to rebound A1's miss, only stating that B1 rebounds and play continues briefly. Yet we know from 8.6.1a,b that "play should be blown dead immediately and resumed using the alternating-possession procedure," if both teams didn't attempt to rebound.
Since the official does not immediately stop play in 2.10.1SitD. Does this mean both teams tried to rebound or that only Team B had players along the lane?

Furthermore, in 2.10.1SitD the official then stops play as B1 is advancing the ball; however, 8.6.1c (the part in which both teams try to rebound the miss) clearly says, "Play should continue." So the official in 2.10.1SitD should not have stopped play when he did. By doing so he created an "accidental whistle" (7.5.4) with Team B in control of the ball. This is why play is resumed with a throw-in by Team B at the out-of-bounds spot nearest to where play was interrupted in 2.10.1SitD. In short, the official in 2.10.1SitD should have stopped play immediately and gone to the arrow or not stopped play at all.






Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:25am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1