Correctable Error

[mcdanrd]

Blind Zebra, You are wrong. You see it all the time. An official might a call a foul in the last minute of the game that he/she wouldn't call in the first 31 minutes because he/she knows the losing team is trying to force free throws and thereby rebounding opportunities and to try to prevent harder fouls.

We often look for advantage/disadvantage. Maybe a foul could be called but with no advantage we let it go. As I have seen in this forum often, and is repeated many times in local and state meetings, to paraphrase, we have to combine the rules with common sense and a sense of fair play. Though I know many disagree, and perhaps that's another argument, we have to decide when and how the rules, as written, apply.

[mick]

Originally posted by JugglingReferee

Ahem...

Yeah. You qualify alright!

[blindzebra]

Originally posted by mcdanrd
Blind Zebra, You are wrong. You see it all the time. An official might a call a foul in the last minute of the game that he/she wouldn't call in the first 31 minutes because he/she knows the losing team is trying to force free throws and thereby rebounding opportunities and to try to prevent harder fouls.

We often look for advantage/disadvantage. Maybe a foul could be called but with no advantage we let it go. As I have seen in this forum often, and is repeated many times in local and state meetings, to paraphrase, we have to combine the rules with common sense and a sense of fair play. Though I know many disagree, and perhaps that's another argument, we have to decide when and how the rules, as written, apply.

WOW!

There is a huge difference between recognizing situational fouling and knowingly not enforcing the correct rule.

This is not a judgment call, it is not about advantage/disadvantage, this is black and white, and you are completely wrong.

[Kajun Ref N Texas]

Originally posted by mcdanrd
Blind Zebra, You are wrong. You see it all the time. An official might a call a foul in the last minute of the game that he/she wouldn't call in the first 31 minutes because he/she knows the losing team is trying to force free throws and thereby rebounding opportunities and to try to prevent harder fouls.

We often look for advantage/disadvantage. Maybe a foul could be called but with no advantage we let it go. As I have seen in this forum often, and is repeated many times in local and state meetings, to paraphrase, we have to combine the rules with common sense and a sense of fair play. Though I know many disagree, and perhaps that's another argument, we have to decide when and how the rules, as written, apply.

mcdanrd,

You say to use "common sense and a sense of fair play," and that's correct. However, I think you are only trying to be "fair" to the free throw shooting team and not the team that hit the game winner. You are taking the game winner away by cancelling activity during a correctable error.

Let's change the situation slightly; what if there were 10 seconds on the clock and the team comes down court, sets a play and hits the three then, do you change your opinion?

What if it were 20 seconds, 1 minute, etc?

I think you are ONLY looking at the free throwers as being harmed, when it was both teams that suffered as a result of the error.

[WhistlesAndStripes]

Originally posted by eventnyc
This article was published in Newsday and involved an official from my association. I removed his name. Was the enforcement correct?

Why remove his name? It was in a published article. Dude's name was Joe Podair.

http://www.newsday.com/sports/basket...314608053jan31,0,6861814.story

As for the whole sitch, common sense says cancel the dam basket, shoot the second FT, and see if he can do it again.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Whistles & Stripes
As for the whole sitch, common sense says cancel the dam basket, shoot the second FT, and see if he can do it again. [/B]

Actually, common sense sez that you follow the rules and do exactly what Rainmaker said.

Making up and applying your own rules that are also completely different than the ones in the rulebook isn't usually referred to as an act of "common sense". That type of action usually lands you in deep doo-doo if the play is inevitably reviewed, as this one was.