Ahhhh...that's the difference between your world and mine Horatio.

Whoa there. You just passed the word down from on high that I can't know something that's false. Now you tell me I can believe something that's false and incorporate that into my system of knowledge (ie collection of things that I am able to know because the are true). Sounds to me you're paving the way for religion here. You're not being very consistent about it tho.

Anyways, we had a nice b'ball debate going but we got off point. Where were we...oh yeah...the players, officials, fans, table, security, janitors, media all ASSUMED the ball would be live on a miss because the man in charge said so.

So why doesn't the ball become live on the miss in this case again?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Dan_ref
The <b>Church of Chuck</b>?

Whoa.........

Put me down for the Kool-Aid franchise.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Quote:

Originally posted by Dan_ref Quote: Sounds to me you're paving the way for religion here. The <b>Church of Chuck</b>? Whoa......... Put me down for the Kool-Aid franchise.

Good idea, wrong beverage

http://www.beerchurch.com/squirrel%20beer.jpg

Good idea, wrong beverage

http://www.beerchurch.com/squirrel%20beer.jpg [/B][/QUOTE]Aw, say it ain't so, Chuck!

I'm shocked!
http://media.funny.co.uk/files/2819.jpg
Shocked, I tell ya!

Rule 11-1
 

This has been a very interesting thread. It seems obvious -- I don't know, but I believe -- that everybody understands that technically this falls under 2-10. But Chuck is working under rule 11-1: "Don't put sh1t in the game."

I like rule 11-1, it makes my life easier. Unless there is a significant "yabut" here -- a "yabut" in this context would be a reason that somebody would likely question what I'm about to do: like the 1.8 second scenario or enough time passing that the "window of opportunity" feels like it's closed, or some pedantic PITA assigner is watching, -- I'm not even going to worry about 2-10 or arguments about the ball not becoming alive.

I'm going blow the whistle, say loudly, "Sorry ladies, my bad. We've got one more shot," line them up and shoot the second shot. Don't give them time to think about it, they will all expect to shoot a second shot once they know it's double bonus. It's the law of least astonishment in action.

I realize that there is no rules-based backing for this action, but it's not about the rules. It's about what I can sell. Unless there's a "yabut" lurking, I can sell this easier than putting time back on the clock and a heckuvalot easier than using 2-10 and POI.

YMMV

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Quote:

Originally posted by Dan_ref Quote: Sounds to me you're paving the way for religion here. The <b>Church of Chuck</b>? Whoa......... Put me down for the Kool-Aid franchise.

I'll book the flights down to Central America.

Re: Re: Re: Re: chuck take another look
 

Chuck --

I was with you until I went back over this thread and read this post. Actually, if the brain cramp happens just before the official announces the shots, the official "awards" the wrong number of shots. The fact that it was a 2 shot foul is what makes it a 2.10 error. The official only awarded the 1 and 1, even though he should have awarded 2. Use 2.10. End of story.

Okay, I've gone back over this thread three or four times, and it seems obvious to me that your error in logic, Chuck, is that you're putting the mistake that needs fixing at the wrong point in time. YOu're putting the error at the point of the rebound. But the error happened when the ref said, "1 and 1" and bounced the ball to the shooter. At that point, the error is made. 2.10 applies from then forward. Nothing else that happens changes that.

If the ref had ANNOUNCED, "2 shots!" when he bounced the ball to the shooter, and they'd rebounded and so on, everything you say would be true -- except I think you should emphasize more strongly that the ref should stop play before the rebounder turns to pass. But that's not what happend. The ref AWARDED 1 and 1 -- there's your 2.10 right there. End of story.

[Edited by rainmaker on Dec 16th, 2004 at 12:35 AM]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: chuck take another look
 

I see your point, I'm just not sure I agree with it.

So you're saying that the real solution is my plan B: Lie and say that you said "2 shots". :)

Chuck:

You may think that is riduculus, but that is just what the Casebook Play says must be done. The Casebook even states that the ball remains live. Sometimes, we just have to live with what is in the rules and case books.

MTD, Sr.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: chuck take another look
 

So you're saying that the real solution is my plan B: Lie and say that you said "2 shots". :) [/B][/QUOTE]

Well, that could work, I suppose...

I'm WAY late in chiming in on this scenario, but I'll add that this exact situation happened in a Georgetown Hoyas game last season. The NCAA D1 big dogs said that the ball never became live and line everyone back up for the second shot and played from there.
Not sure that I agree with it, but that is what they did.