Correctable error administration

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by ChuckElias

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 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? [/B][/QUOTE]

How does your scenario change if I merely say this:

"No, Tampa Bay won. I watched it. I know I saw it with my own 2 eyes."

Yeah, off the point sorta. How about this:

Columbus: "I shall sail around the globe and find China! I know I can do it!! And I know you'll want to be a part of the journey!!!"

Reluctant sailor: "C'mon Chris, I know that evil hag Isabella will never give you the money. Even if she did we both know the current theory is that the world is flat and you'll be eaten by dragons before you have a chance to drop off the edge anyway!"

According to your model they're just a couple of know-nothings, aint they? And the original guy, the guy with the dumb friend, doesn't he still get to claim he knows TB won, even though he's wrong? You saying your model doesn't allow for incorrect or inaccurate beliefs in a system of knowledge? If that's true then we don't really know anything at all, do we?

[Robmoz]

This have been a fine debate, if not entertaining.

Chuck, I really like your justification for the "do-over".

JR, I really like your quotation of the rule.

Sooooooooo.....now it comes down to personal philosophy or judgement about fairness over correctness. It sure sounds like both arguements will work or at least could be sold (explained) to the coaches in a logical manner.

The complexity in the heat of the moment will probably not help either coach to determine if he is getting hosed by a rule or helped out of perceived fairness. Fairness, in most cases, is not a valid premise because it depends on whose point of view you are supporting.

Therefore, I would have have to concur with the rule citation and rely on the book for support when asked to explain myself since that only seems fair to me.

[FrankHtown]

Well, I want to thank you for the input. We lined up the girls and shot the second shot with everybody on the lane.

But, I talked to a pretty reliable rules guy here in Houston. He said, pursuant to 2-10-5 and 2-10-6, we should have cleared the lane, gave A1 her second throw, then resumed play with a throw-in by B at a point close to where we stopped play to correct the error, since there was a change of possession.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Rocky the Flying Squirrel

So why do you think it sounds like I'm smoking something? [/B]

Lemme get this one, Dan:

[Forksref]

If we are correcting the error, we will line everyone up for the 2nd FT and they can rebound the miss, correct? Why would we clear the lane and award the ball to B after the FT?

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally posted by ChuckElias

JMO, as usual, but I think the ball never became live after the miss. The table notified the officials right away that there were two shots. It sounds like the "play" was stopped immediately. Therefore, I'd just say, "Sorry everybody. Shoulda been two, line it up for the second shot".

The ball never became live. That's my story and I'm sticking with it.

Chuck:

After my initial post to this thread I have ignored it until now. I did a skimmed through all of the posts since you made your initial post and decided your first post is the one to which I want to respond because I think it is the post that is now driving this thread.

In my initial post I said that A1 will shoot is second free throw with the free throw lane spaces unoccupied and then Team B would receive the ball for a throw-in closest to the spot where the ball was when the game was stopped to acknowledge the correctable error.

You took the position that because A1's first free throw was actually supposed to be the first of two and not the first of a one-and-one, that the ball became dead as soon as it was apparent that the free was not going to be successful. NFHS Casebook Play 2.10.1 SITUATION B says that the ball does not become dead when the free throw is not successful. The play itself is only similar to ours. In the Casebook Play, A1 was awarded two free throws (A one-and-one was erroneously instead of two free throws in our play.) but the ball was "erroneously, the ball is allowed to remain in play after A1 misses on the first attempt."

But the second sentence in the RULING is the key to both plays. And it starts out: "Since the all remained in play on the missed free throw, ..." The remaining portion of the sentence refers to other parts of the Casebook Play which are not germane to our play.

Therefore, the proper way to correct the error was to allow A1 to shoot his second free throw with the free throw lane spaces unoccupied and then Team B would receive the ball for a throw-in closest to the spot where the ball was when the game was stopped to acknowledge the correctable error.

MTD, Sr.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Forksref
If we are correcting the error, we will line everyone up for the 2nd FT and they can rebound the miss, correct? Why would we clear the lane and award the ball to B after the FT?

There was a change of team possession on the missed free throw. You now apply the applicable rule, R2-10-6, and B gets the ball because they had it when you initiated the correction procedure.

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Lemme get this one, Dan: [/B]

Cute, but I was expecting Yoda!

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by ChuckElias

Cute, but I was expecting Yoda! [/B]

Not appropriate. Yoda's smart.

Likes the wackytabaccy too, though.

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by Dan_ref
How does your scenario change if I merely say this:

"No, Tampa Bay won. I watched it. I know I saw it with my own 2 eyes."

Ok, if we're really gonna do philosophy, then we need to be precise about what we're saying. You know that you saw Tampa Bay win a game. But since it wasn't the game you thought it was, you don't know that they won yesterday's Superbowl. Your comment (in the context of the conversation with your co-worker) implies that you saw Tampa Bay win the most recent Superbowl, which didn't happen. So you do not know that you saw Tampa Bay win the most recent Superbowl with your own two eyes.

How about this:

Columbus: "I shall sail around the globe and find China! I know I can do it!! And I know you'll want to be a part of the journey!!!"

Reluctant sailor: "C'mon Chris, I know that evil hag Isabella will never give you the money. Even if she did we both know the current theory is that the world is flat and you'll be eaten by dragons before you have a chance to drop off the edge anyway!"

According to your model they're just a couple of know-nothings, aint they?

No, I don't think so. The reluctant sailor clearly doesn't know anything about dragons. And although he knows that most people believe that the world is flat ("the current theory"), he doesn't know that it's flat.

You saying your model doesn't allow for incorrect or inaccurate beliefs in a system of knowledge? If that's true then we don't really know anything at all, do we?

I'm saying that you don't know anything that's false. You can believe something that's false and include that belief in a larger belief system that includes true beliefs. One false belief does not imply that you don't know anything. You can't know that the Earth is the center of the solar system. But even if you believe that, you can still know that the sun first appeared in the East this morning and last appeared to the West tonight, even tho you're wrong about why that happened.

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
But the second sentence in the RULING is the key to both plays. And it starts out: "Since the all remained in play on the missed free throw, ..." The remaining portion of the sentence refers to other parts of the Casebook Play which are not germane to our play.

So if B1 forgets that I just said "2 shots", rebounds the miss and outlets to his point guard (and we've all seen this), we have a correctable error? Heck, the ball remained in play. We had a rebound, a pass and two dribbles. Bring it back, clear the lane, and go to the POI.

That's ridiculous, but that's what you're all suggesting we do in this case. The ball was NOT live, regardless of how the players reacted to it. Remember, the whistle that blew did not cause the ball to become dead. It was dead already.

And JR, if you say, "Yeah, but the clock started", I'm gonna scream. That's a timer's error and is irrelevant to whether the ball is live or not.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by ChuckElias
[/B]

I'm saying that you don't know anything that's false. You can believe something that's false and include that belief in a larger belief system that includes true beliefs. One false belief does not imply that you don't know anything. You can't know that the Earth is the center of the solar system. But even if you believe that, you can still know that the sun first appeared in the East this morning and last appeared to the West tonight, even tho you're wrong about why that happened. [/B][/QUOTE]I get it.

If I say that I believe that Chuck is goofy, that may or may not be true.

However, if I say that I know that Chuck is goofy, then that would be true.

Correct?

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
I get it.

If I say that I believe that Chuck is goofy, that may or may not be true.

Right, depending on whether or not you actually believe it.

However, if I say that I know that Chuck is goofy, then that would be true.

Correct?

Only if (a) you actually believe it, (b) have a good reason to believe it and (c) it turns out that I really am goofy.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by ChuckElias

So if B1 forgets that I just said "2 shots", rebounds the miss and outlets to his point guard (and we've all seen this), we have a correctable error? Heck, the ball remained in play. We had a rebound, a pass and two dribbles. Bring it back, clear the lane, and go to the POI.

That's ridiculous, but that's what you're all suggesting we do in this case. The ball was NOT live, regardless of how the players reacted to it. Remember, the whistle that blew did not cause the ball to become dead. It was dead already.

And JR, if you say, "Yeah, but the clock started", I'm gonna scream. That's a timer's error and is irrelevant to whether the ball is live or not.

Yabut the clock started!

It ain't a timer's error in this particular case. It was a scorer's error in telling you that it was 1/1 and not 2 shots? The timer started the clock correctly as per the rule for a missed first shot on a 1/1. The C shoulda also chopped time in too on the missed FT because he didn't know at that time that it shoulda been 2 shots instead of 1/1. He didn't find that out until they buzzed to tell him that- which was after B started up the court with the rebound. Now what rule are you gonna straighten out this scorer's error with?

This particular play can't possibly be anything else than a correctable error, and you have to treat it as such.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by ChuckElias

Right, depending on whether or not you actually believe it.

Only if (a) you actually believe it, (b) have a good reason to believe it and (c) it turns out that I really am goofy.

All I have to do is offer up your responses in this thread to the jury, and then rest my case.