cars and violins
grass and televisions
blenders and toothbrushes
staplers and hamburgers
paper and diamonds

this is fun -- lets see how many more pages we can accumulate of this. I think I am still behind JR cuz he must have like at least 25 of these in this thread so I have some catching up to do

Well, upon further review, maybe I was wrong.

So.....maybe I'll argue for the other side for 10 or 12 pages now. :p

:D <b> </b>

Yawn...I could'a swore this thread was 25 pages? Must've been dreaming...

Anyway, thanks to a fellow esteemed member...coughNevadarefcough...I happened to read the following:

9.2.2 SITUATION C: A1 scores a basket. After the ball goes through the net, B1 grabs it and makes a move toward the end line as though preparing to make a throw-in. However, B1 never legally steps out of bounds, both feet remain inbounds. B1 immediately passes the ball up the court to a fast-breaking teammate, who scores a basket. RULING: Cancel Team B's goal, throw-in violation on B1. The ball was at B1's disposal after the made basket to make a throw-in. B1 must be out of bounds to make a legal throw-in. (7-4-3; 7-5-7)

So, am I reading this correctly that we are allowed to wipe off a basket and go back in time to call a violation?!? :eek:

Ok, I'm going back to sleep now. Everyone else can discuss. :)

Yep, I'm thinking you read it wrong. In this sitch they expect you to make the call right then, not when the coach requests it during a time-out. The violation could be called before the basket, but the red words indicate it all happened real quick.

I guess the question is: Is there "statute of limitations" on calling a violation.

I had a situation: I'm lead, 2 person. A1 has a throw in from the corner in A's frontcourt. I administer the throw-in. A1 throws the ball, it hits the side of the backboard, and rebounds right to A1. She grabs the ball, puts up a try, and scores. I'm there saying in my mind "something's wrong...something's wrong" Team B inbounds and get a few steps up the court, when it dawns on me: A1 threw it in and was the first to touch the ball. I immediately blew the whistle and wiped the basket. Now, if the play had gotten to mid court, I don't know if I would have felt comfortable wiping the basket at that point. But since we were still in the vicinity of the play, and only a few seconds had elapsed, I felt comfortable.

So, what is the statute of limitations on calling a violation?

or real quickly or even really quick or even more impressively really quickly.

Well, really quickly, answer me this - does the case play suggest you are making the correction after the ball becomes dead (after the basket)? And the reason for the correction is the ball never really became "live" in the first place, due to the violation?

Of course they want us to make the call when it happens. But aren't they telling us that we can blow the whistle after another play happens (pass downcourt, catch, layup, basket), and wipe that off, because we are going back in time to call that violation?

Well technically, in 9.2.2sitC didn't the ball become live as soon as B1 had ball at his disposal (grabs ball and moves towards endline).

I don't think the focus of 9.2.2sitC is the cancelling of the basket (that info is superflous in my opinion), the focus is that throwing such a pass should be ruled a violation.

There have been officials in the past (myself included) who would have just blown the play dead and had B1 properly inbound the ball reasoning that the ball never became live so no violation occurred. Now with the clarification of "disposal after a made shot" by the FED, the scenario in 9.2.2sitC clearly is a violation and needs to be ruled as such.

Exactly.

So wouldn't going back and ruling that the ball hitting the basket support was a violation, and needs to be ruled as such? Even if time is a factor (things happening really quickly), would the time used to throw a pass downcourt, catch it, and make a layup still take more time that a ball hitting a basket support and going through that same basket?

I see your point. In my opinion 9.2.2sitC is written poorly in that it isn't stating when the official recognized the violation. As I wrote earlier, I think the scoring the basket portion should have been left out the scenario and the focus should have been just squarely on calling the violation for not properly inbounding the ball.

I'm a little confused. What is the statute of limitations for correcting grammatical or spelling errors? ;)

Well, as they say...and 1. :cool:

Good post.

I'm not sure it's poorly written. Maybe they left it vague on purpose. But one thing that isn't vague is the fact we can have a live ball, then a dead ball, then go back and call the violation. In other words, getting it right.

Now, I will still go back and say I'm not going to get into a judgement discussion with my partner about whether or not the player really was completely OOB. Just like we are not going to get into a discussion about whether the ball did or did not hit the support. But, if my partner tells me, "Uh, yea, I saw him still in-bounds, but I thought it was ok because the player intended to take the ball OOB...", then we're going to correct it, just like the rule book says we can.

I don't think there is a limit on a certain amount of time to make a call. The problem in the original post is that a call was made after time-out was called and the coach prompted the officials to do so. Now this is no longer a call to be made, but an error to be corrected.

A missed violation is not a correctable error, according to myself and several others, as vigorously stated on the last 80 or so pages on this thread.