Situation last night GV. Player A1 is awarded 1 and 1. Misses the first shot. Team B rebounds and starts down court. Table sounds horn, yelling it should have been two shots. Co-official stops play, and we line everybody up to shoot the 2nd free throw.

A bell went off in the back of my mind that on a change of possesion during a correctible error, we go back to the point of interruption? That is, should we have cleared lane, let A1 shoot her second, then give the ball back to B for a throw -in at closest point to where play was stopped?

ART. 1 . . . Officials may correct an error if a rule is inadvertently set aside and results in:

a. Failure to award a merited free throw.
b. Awarding an unmerited free throw.
c. Permitting a wrong player to attempt a free throw.
d. Attempting a free throw at the wrong basket.
e. Erroneously counting or canceling a score.

ART. 2 . . . In order to correct any of the officials' errors listed in Article 1, such error must be recognized by an official during the first dead ball after the clock has properly started.

ok...we corrected the error before the ball became dead a second time. I was looking for the correct restart.

Do we line everybody up and administer the second free throw as if the miss and rebound hadn't happened?

Or do we clear the lane, award the merited second shot, and resume with a throw in for B at the point of stopping play?

Your second paragraph is correct. A1 shoots her second free throw all by her lonesome, and then Team B gets the ball for a throw-in nearest the spot where the ball was when you stopped play to correct the error.

MTD, Sr.

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.

I'll go along with that--<b>if</b> the clock didn't start. If they did start and then stop the clock immediately, what are you gonna do now? By rule?

chuck take another look
 

Chuck,
Take a little longer look, team B started down court so we did have a change of possesion, and since there was some nit picking in an earlier thread, the ball became live when it was at the throwers disposal ;)

Re: chuck take another look
 

Yes, but it became dead as soon as it was apparent that the FT would not be successful. So the rebounder simply caught a dead ball.

That's just a simple timer's error. I have definite knowledge of the time that should be on the clock, and so we put it back. The ball was never live during the "play", so we reset the clock, line everybody up and shoot a FT.

It really doesn't seem that hard. The bottom line is the play never happened, b/c the ball was never live. As long as the error is discovered immediately, ignore everything that happened after the first FT and shoot the FT the way it should've happened.

Re: Re: chuck take another look
 

It wasn't dead if it was administered as a 1 and 1 was it? I agree if it was administered as a 2 shot foul and the players rebounded it...but this was administered as a 1 and 1 so it was live wasn't it? Albeit incorrectly administered however LOL :D

Re: Re: Re: chuck take another look
 

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.

Oh? And how exactly does that fit in with R2-10-5- "Points scored, <font color = red>consumed time, and additional activity</font>, which may occur prior to the recognition of an error, shall <font color = red>not</font> be nullified."

Chuck, if that was the case then if how would we ever get the ball to become live again in this case? That is why the provision is in the rules to allow points scored to count...if the ball can not become live because of the error, there would be no way to count potential points scored, would there??

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.

ok I can see that, and it makes sense....The way I read this case though seems to me to force 2-10, but I see what you are trying to do...and you can probably get by with it however it is corrected. Most coaches don't understand 2-10, or even know it exists LOL

Well, in my scenario, the ball becomes live when the FT shooter catches the ball to shoot his 2nd FT. :)

If everybody is allowed to believe that the ball is live and play is allowed to continue, then the ball is live. If kids go for the rebound, but we step in and say, "Uh, guys, it's 2 shots", then the ball is not live. I'm merely suggesting that we say "Uh, guys, it's 2 shots".

Again, Chuck, if the clock <b>does</b> 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.

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.

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".

Chuck, earlier you wrote this:

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.

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!!!

Fatal flaws in your argument, Chuck. The ball <b>did</b> become live and the clock <b>did</b> 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?

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.

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?

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.

OK....let's go to <b>your</b> 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 <b>ever</b> 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. :D

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.

That's better.

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]

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?

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?

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.

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.

Lemme get this one, Dan:

http://www.comedy-zone.net/pictures/.../animal020.jpg

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?

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.

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.

Cute, but I was expecting Yoda!

Not appropriate. Yoda's smart.
http://www.sodamnfunny.com/Picture/Movie/yoda.jpg
Likes the wackytabaccy too, though.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

Yabut the clock started!

It <b>ain't</b> 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.

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

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.