Correctable error administration

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by the ugly little gnome
It fits with the passage that says an official may declare that the ball never became live. If the ball was never live, then there is no time consumed.

Again, I'm assuming that the horn sounded very quickly. Rebound, turn, pass, horn. If the play gets to the point where Team B scores, then we clearly have to apply 2-10.

I'm trying to avoid 2-10 altogether, b/c a strict enforcement makes for a stupid result. The rational, correct result is to line everybody up and shoot a FT. If the horn sounds immediately, that's what we'll do. If it's not possible to do that then we go with 2-10.

Again, Chuck, if the clock does start, how can you possibly avoid using R2-10 in this situation? There's no rules justification to use anything else. And R2-10-5 won't let you put time back on the clock.

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by the vindictive geezer
Again, Chuck, if the clock does start, how can you possibly avoid using R2-10 in this situation? There's no rules justification to use anything else.

The goofy namecalling is funny, but in all seriousness, I guess I just don't see why a tick of the clock automatically makes this a 2-10 correctable error. Falling under 2-10 or not doesn't have anything to do with the clock running, does it? (Obviously, I realize that the clock running is relevant to whether you can correct a 2-10 error. That's not what I'm asking.)

If the clock runs, why can't we just say the timer allowed the clock to run improperly? This would be a simple timing mistake. We're allowed to correct a timer's mistake if we have definite knowledge of the time that elapsed. So why not do that here?

And R2-10-5 won't let you put time back on the clock.

As I said, the whole point of my approach is to avoid 2-10, b/c it yields a stupid result.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by ChuckElias

The goofy namecalling is funny, but in all seriousness, I guess I just don't see why a tick of the clock automatically makes this a 2-10 correctable error. Falling under 2-10 or not doesn't have anything to do with the clock running, does it? (Obviously, I realize that the clock running is relevant to whether you can correct a 2-10 error. That's not what I'm asking.)

If the clock runs, why can't we just say the timer allowed the clock to run improperly? This would be a simple timing mistake. We're allowed to correct a timer's mistake if we have definite knowledge of the time that elapsed. So why not do that here?

As I said, the whole point of my approach is to avoid 2-10, b/c it yields a stupid result.

Awarding a merited FT is not part of what the book tells you that you can correct under a timer's mistake. A timer's mistake will let you put time back on the clock, but it will not let you shoot the missed FT. If you want to give them their merited FT, the only rule that will allow you to go back and do so is R2-10. There's nothing under any other rule that will let you do that. May not be fair iyo, but dem's the rulez.

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
Awarding a merited FT is not part of what the book tells you that you can correct under a timer's mistake. A timer's mistake will let you put time back on the clock, but it will not let you shoot the missed FT. If you want to give them their merited FT, the only rule that will allow you to go back and do so is R2-10. There's nothing under any other rule that will let you do that. May not be fair iyo, but dem's the rulez.

Ok, again in all seriousness, you simply haven't answered my question. Why is the fact that the clock ran relevant to the question of whether this play falls under 2-10 or not?

Are you saying that if everything happened exactly as described (FT misses, kid rebounds, everybody takes a few steps upcourt, then horn sounds), but the clock did not run, we could just line back up and shoot one FT? If so, then why can't we do that after the clock ticks off 2 seconds? By rule, why not?

I'll grant you that it's very unusual, but it's really just two mistakes (not 2-10 correctable errors). One is the error by the official who stated 1-and-1 instead of 2 shots, and the other is a timer's error for letting the clock run when it shouldn't have.

As soon as the mistakes are discovered (again, assuming that the horn sounded within a second or two), we realize that the ball really never became live after the FT missed. As long as the ball never became live, there's been no 2-10 error.

If the play is allowed to continue for several seconds or if Team B is allowed to score, then it becomes implausible to say that the ball never became live. But if it's caught immediately, then it makes perfect sense to say "Uh, guys, it was 2 shots".

[Dan_ref]

Chuck, earlier you wrote this:

Again, I'm assuming that the horn sounded very quickly. Rebound, turn, pass, horn. If the play gets to the point where Team B scores, then we clearly have to apply 2-10.

Why is whether or not B scores relevant?

I can see why you would want to avoid 2-10, and I can see in this case how you could avoid it by simply not bringing up the ugly details, and I can even see how an assignor might give you an attaboy for sliding past a potentially ugly mess, but by rule I don't see how you are correct.

[scyguy]

this thread seems to parallel the two questions thread, but isn't there a contradiction? One thread says the ball is live after the miss, the other says it is dead. HELP!!!

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by ChuckElias

Ok, again in all seriousness, you simply haven't answered my question. Why is the fact that the clock ran relevant to the question of whether this play falls under 2-10 or not?

Are you saying that if everything happened exactly as described (FT misses, kid rebounds, everybody takes a few steps upcourt, then horn sounds), but the clock did not run, we could just line back up and shoot one FT? If so, then why can't we do that after the clock ticks off 2 seconds? By rule, why not?

I'll grant you that it's very unusual, but it's really just two mistakes (not 2-10 correctable errors). One is the error by the official who stated 1-and-1 instead of 2 shots, and the other is a timer's error for letting the clock run when it shouldn't have.

As soon as the mistakes are discovered (again, assuming that the horn sounded within a second or two), we realize that the ball really never became live after the FT missed. As long as the ball never became live, there's been no 2-10 error.

If the play is allowed to continue for several seconds or if Team B is allowed to score, then it becomes implausible to say that the ball never became live. But if it's caught immediately, then it makes perfect sense to say "Uh, guys, it was 2 shots".

Fatal flaws in your argument, Chuck. The ball did become live and the clock did start. You said above "by rule". What rule can you use to go back, other than 2-10, if the ball did become live and the clock started? And why is two seconds your shut-off point to go back? Why not 30 seconds later? Sixty seconds later? Four minutes later?

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by Dan_ref

Chuck, earlier you wrote this:

Why is whether or not B scores relevant?

Team B scoring (or the play continuing for a long period of time after the official's mistake) makes it implausible to say that the ball never became live after the miss.

The interpretation (in the book) is basically this: Even tho the ball should NOT have been allowed to be live, since everybody played for a while and somebody scored, obviously everybody thought that the ball was live. So it was live. The only reason the ball is live is that everybody thought it should be.

My point is if we are quick enough to alert everybody that the ball isn't live, and we don't allow people to play as though it were live, then we can reasonably say that the ball never was live. If it never was live, then we just pick up where we left off, which obviously (in my very humble opinion) is the right thing to do.

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by ChuckElias


Why is whether or not B scores relevant?

Team B scoring (or the play continuing for a long period of time after the official's mistake) makes it implausible to say that the ball never became live after the miss.

The interpretation (in the book) is basically this: Even tho the ball should NOT have been allowed to be live, since everybody played for a while and somebody scored, obviously everybody thought that the ball was live. So it was live. The only reason the ball is live is that everybody thought it should be.

My point is if we are quick enough to alert everybody that the ball isn't live, and we don't allow people to play as though it were live, then we can reasonably say that the ball never was live. If it never was live, then we just pick up where we left off, which obviously (in my very humble opinion) is the right thing to do. [/B][/QUOTE]

Hmmmm... all I know is by rule the ball becomes live when the first of a 1&1 is missed (ignoring special cases). Since everyone KNEW it was 1&1 (they were just told) then why would it not be safe to assme everyone THOUGHT the ball is live off the miss?

Regardless of how much time elapsed between the ball becoming ive & someone muttering "oh sh1t" to himself?

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by Dan_ref
Since everyone KNEW it was 1&1 (they were just told)

Please forgive the resident philosopher, but it's not possible to know something that is false. You might strongly believe it, but you'd still be wrong. There are other philosophers who would claim to know that the claim in my first sentence is false; but they wouldn't really know it.

Ok, onto the real point. There is, somewhere (I don't know where b/c I don't have access to my searchable rulebook), a comment to the effect that when a horn sounds during certain situations (throw-ins, I think), it's possible for the referee to rule that the ball never became live; even though it sure looked like the throw-in had started.

If all else fails, lie and say that you told the kids it was 2 shots.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by ChuckElias

My point is if we are quick enough to alert everybody that the ball isn't live, and we don't allow people to play as though it were live, then we can reasonably say that the ball never was live. If it never was live, then we just pick up where we left off, which obviously (in my very humble opinion) is the right thing to do. [/B]

OK....let's go to your 2-step scenario.

Score is B64 A62. A1 is on the line for 1/1 with 1.8 seconds to go in the game, but it should actually be 2 shots. A1 misses, B1 rebounds, takes 2 steps/dribbles......and the horn goes to end the game. Scorer now says "Oopsie, shoulda been 2 shots, guys. We owe A1 another shot. Now there's 2 ways to handle this, right? (1)The "R2-10" way and (2)the patented and trademarked "Chuckie Way".

(1)"The R2-10 way"-- The rules say that it is a correctable error and A1 does have a merited FT coming(R2-10-1a & R2-10-2). But R2-10-5 says that you can't put any time back on the clock- so the game is over. Also, under R2-10-6, seeing that there was a change of possession to team B, the ball should go back to the POI. Either way, there shouldn't be any players allowed on the lanes anyway(R8-1-3) for the merited 2nd. FT. But.....Rule 5-6-3EXCEPTION says that you don't shoot a FT after the game is over if that FT doesn't affect the outcome of the game. Ergo....no merited FT shot and final score is B64 A62.

(2) "Chuckie Way"--- Same scenario...A1 misses 1st FT.... B1 rebounds and horn goes....scorer goes "Oopsie" again. But Chuckie says "NOPE, IT'S A DO-OVER" and he puts 1.8 seconds back on the clock, lines the player up along the lanes(you can't use POI to B because you don't use 2-10 in Chuckie's Way) and gives A1 his second, merited FT. A1 misses, but A2 rebounds and throws up a shot that goes in at the buzzer. And....the Lead(JR- who isn't afraid to make the tough call- and hardly ever misses one) also calls a foul by B2 on A2's shot. Count the basket, put A2 on the line for 1 FT with the lanes empty.....and.....A2 makes it. Game over. Final score A65 B64.

And if anybody ever questions the "Chuckie Way", just tell them that the ball was never live after the first missed FT, so we just picked up where we left off- because that's the right thing to do.

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by ChuckElias

Please forgive the resident philosopher, but it's not possible to know something that is false.

Sigh. Why do philosophers feel the need to sound like a bunch of college freshmen sitting around the dorm on Saturday night smoking pot for the very first time? (I just KNOW you'll find the humor in that...or maybe on the other hand I just KNOW you'll be insulted. Get back to me so I can make up my mind, I know you will...or maybe not....btw, where did the twinkies go??)

Anywho..in order to keep my head from smashing into my keyboard when I fall asleep I've gone ahead and changed my wording.

Ok, onto the real point....
If all else fails, lie and say that you told the kids it was 2 shots.

That's better.

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
OK....let's go to your 2-step scenario.

(1)"The R2-10 way"--

(2) "Chuckie Way"---

Ok, let's go to it. And I ask you in all seriousness, which way is the fairer way for the game to end? Should we play only 31 minutes and 58.2 seconds b/c of a referee screw-up, or should the full game be played so that the players actually decide the outcome?

The only fair thing to do is say that the ball never was live and that the timer screwed up by allowing the clock to run.

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by ChuckElias

Ok, let's go to it. And I ask you in all seriousness, which way is the fairer way for the game to end? Should we play only 31 minutes and 58.2 seconds b/c of a referee screw-up, or should the full game be played so that the players actually decide the outcome?

The only fair thing to do is say that the ball never was live and that the timer screwed up by allowing the clock to run.

...unless something significant happens which causes us to go by the rules according to what you've said here.

[Edited by Dan_ref on Dec 15th, 2004 at 05:08 PM]

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by Dan_ref
Please forgive the resident philosopher, but it's not possible to know something that is false.

Sigh. Why do philosophers feel the need to sound like a bunch of college freshmen sitting around the dorm on Saturday night smoking pot for the very first time? [/B][/QUOTE]I don't know what it's like to smoke pot for the very first time, but I imagine that you'd have to be smoking pot for my comment above not to make sense.

Suppose you go to a buddy's house on Superbowl Sunday to watch the big game. The only problem is, your friend is a little absent-minded and accidently plays you a tape of the Raiders/Buccaneers Superbowl. You watch the whole thing and walk out convinced that the Buccaneers are NFL champs. When you mention this "fact" at work the next day, your co-worker says "Tampa didn't play in the Superbowl. New England won yesterday." You say, "No, Tampa Bay won. I watched it. I know they won yesterday."

Would you say that you really knew that Tampa Bay was the Superbowl winner for that season? Obviously not.

That just seems obvious to me. So why do you think it sounds like I'm smoking something?