in my game tonight, i was L (2 man). the shot went up and was a miss. on the rebound, i call a pushing foul. as i approach the scorer's table, the visiting coach says the ball hit the support above the basket. at that point, my partner comes over and says it did hit the support. so, i pull him aside for a conference. and i asked my partner if he blew the ball dead for hitting the support. he said he didn't know that the support was OB. and that he didn't blow the ball dead. i then tell him that since he didn't blow the ball dead, that my foul call would stand and that i would report the foul. because this isn't a correctable error. so, i inform both coaches of our the situation. and tell them that the foul would stand, since my partner didn't call the ball dead.

was that correct?

If you were working with a guy who didn't know that basket supports are OOB, then I'm guessing this was a lower level game. I think I would rule that the ball was dead b/c it hit the support. Since the contact wasn't intentional or flagrant, I'd disregard it.

The official's whistle seldom causes the ball to become dead (it is already dead).

Once you talked to your partner, you had actual knowledge that a dead ball preceeded the foul. As Chuck pointed out, unless the contact is intentional or flagrant, it should be ignored.

"The ball hit the support first, we're goin' that way."

interesting...
 

well, i just i kicked that one. however, i must have done a good job explaining to the coaches, why i counted the foul and not the OOB call. either one of them complained after my explanation.

next time, i'll take the OOB call since if wasn't intentional or flagrant contact.

thanks for the help!!!

I disagree with the conclusion of ignoring the foul.

For many situations in the game, we could certainly have a discussion and find an uncalled violation that preceeded a foul. If no one blows the ball dead, you can't make it dead retroactively...even if it should have been.

It's not ignoring the foul. It's not making the ball dead retroactively. It's a late whistle.

Late whistle? The official NEVER blew the whistle at all.

The issue was only raised after the foul was called (by the other official) when the coach asked why they didn't call the ball hitting the support.

If he doesn't call it, you can't call a foul the review with him any possible violations that should have been called but weren't. He missed it. It's too late. If the official doesn't call a violation, it didn't happen.

IMO if you're working with a newbie who saw it hit but doesn't know the rule you have to fix it - violation, foul is wiped out.

Just a thought...

If you're in the school that you disregard the foul and go with the OOB call, what would you do with this situation...

Shot goes up by team A...miss...rebound by team A and a second shot that goes in. Now team B calls a time out and Coach of team B says, "Hey. That first shot hit the support." After a conference with your partner, you're told that the ball did hit the support but he didn't know it was OOB.

Do you wipe off the points and give the ball to team B? If not, why?

It depends on who's ahead and by how much. (Assuming we're talking here about 6th grade or 7th grade ball.)

Slip slidin' away
 

Oooh, I want this one. Having just dropped my "Critical Thinking and Computer Logic" college course for the second time in as many years, I instantly recognize this argument for what it is: a logical fallacy. To be precise, a fallacy often called slippery slope.

So, let's cut to the chase, shall we? Let's get right that most extreme example we can think of. What am I going to do when the visiting coach calls time out during the third overtime and points out that there was a violation during the opening jump ball?

Yep, you've got me. If my solution to the earlier problem cannot fix this problem, then it is completely discredited and I should immediately delete my original posting. Busted. Yep, you win.

Not.

The thoughtful and philosophical referee will not be taken in by such chicanery. This zen official recognizes that he must discover those guiding principles which will allow him to weigh each situation individually and determine the best course of action for each.

The real question, is what are those guiding principles? And here is where I'm going to meander a bit. Because, frankly, I don't know what they are yet. But I honestly want to find out. And this, I believe, is a topic worthy of much lively discussion.

I think we can agree that there is no specific rule exactly covering either situation. The situations posed feel much like dreaded correctable errors, however. Neither is, of course. But what can be learned by examining the correctable error rule?

Principle 1. There is a definite window of time in which you can fix an error. (2-10-2,3)

Principle 2. Action that happens between the error and the discovery should be ignored unless it's intentional, flagrant or unsporting in nature. (2-10-4)

Principle 3. Points scored and time consumed should not be nullified. (2-10-5)

Principle 4. If game is interrupted to correct the error, it should resume from the point of interruption. (2-10-6)

What other disciplines can we think about to discover guiding princples? What about game management. More an art form than a disciple, it has rules all it's own. Again, some discussion here would be most helpful.

Principle 5. Ultimately the game is about the people involved. The best you can hope for is for everybody to feel that the outcome is fair.

Principle 6. If you can't sell it, don't go there.

Principle 7. Yesterday's news are yesterday's blues. Don't open old wounds.

Principle 8. There is a definite connection between crew credibility and getting it right. They are sometimes in tension, sometimes in harmony. One really good way to lose credibility is for everybody in the gym to have seen what you refuse to admit.

Having discovered some guiding principles, let's evaluate the two situations.

1. In the original situation the error was discovered in a timely manner. 2. There was no non-basketball action in the interim. 3. There were no points scored to worry about. 4. There is no point of interruption to worry about. 5. Who could be too distressed about a routine oob violation? 6. This is an easy sell. It is really no different than a travel-before-the-foul double-whistle situation. 7. This is an open wound, so we've got to deal with it. 8. Coaches saw it, players saw it, the rest of the crew volunteered that they saw it too.

Our guiding principles clearly seem to be leading us in the direction of the OOB violation.

On to your situation:

1. Not so much with the timely. With the rebound and the put back, you've definitely on to the next play. 2. No non-basketball stuff. 3. There are scored points to deal with. 4. POI is the same either way. 5. Same as before. 6. This is definitely going to be harder to sell. 7. With the put back, the moment passed. 8. You're gonna take a credibility hit on this one. You had to go to your partner, he didn't come to you. Correcting the error will make the crew look bad. Not correcting the error will make the crew look bad. Oh, and have fun telling the coach that he gets charged for the time out because it's not a correctable error situation. :)

Based on our guiding principles, I'm gonna say: It absolutely depends. :D

Game management principles are going to bear greater sway in my decision this time. What level of ball is it? How significant is the game? Where are at in the game? How significant is this decision to the game? What will everyone feel is fair? What can you sell? I'm going to do what's right for the game. If that is different than how I would have ruled in the first situation, I don't have a problem with that.

And as for the jump ball violation the the third overtime? I'm gonna laugh and walk away.

I think that I might agree with BITSy.

Maybe.

Wow, Back In The Saddle! I did say it was just a thought:)

It seems your lengthy answer ultimately ended with, "depends." Which I'm seeing happens somewhat regularly. (I mean in the general sense, with all of our discussions/situations, not with Back In The Saddle specifically.)

So, now I have more to think about and I'm giving Saddle an A+ for an answer worthy of a college paper:)

It's "worthy" of more than that, Bitsy, if you get my drift!

Re: Slip slidin' away
 

Since I'm currently teaching "Critical Thinking and Sound Reasoning" (essentially a Logic class), I'm ecstatic to see you recognizing common fallacies. I'm sad, however, to hear you've dropped the course -- again :(