Correctable error administration

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by ChuckElias
I'm saying that you don't know anything that's false.

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

You can believe something that's false and include that belief in a larger belief system that includes true beliefs.

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?

[Jurassic Referee]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Dan_ref

Sounds to me you're paving the way for religion here.

The Church of Chuck?

Whoa.........

Put me down for the Kool-Aid franchise.

[Dan_ref]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Originally posted by Dan_ref

The Church of Chuck?

Whoa.........

Put me down for the Kool-Aid franchise.

Good idea, wrong beverage

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Dan_ref
[/B]

Good idea, wrong beverage

[/B][/QUOTE]Aw, say it ain't so, Chuck!

I'm shocked!

Shocked, I tell ya!

[Back In The Saddle]

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

[Mark Dexter]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Originally posted by Dan_ref

The Church of Chuck?

Whoa.........

Put me down for the Kool-Aid franchise.

I'll book the flights down to Central America.

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by ChuckElias

Sure it was. If a player should be awarded 2 FTs, he doesn't lose the right to one of them simply b/c the official has a brain cramp. It's a 2 shot foul, regardless of what the official says.

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]

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by rainmaker
it seems obvious to me that your error 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.

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

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

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

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

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.

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.

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by ChuckElias
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

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...

[Nevadaref]

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.