In other words, he missed the (violation) call.

Where does it say in the rule that the violation had to be <b>called</b>? The rule only says it's a violation when it <b>occurs</b>. It's our judgement as to whether it has occured.

See above.
I know it's not a chick wire, because I'm not attracted to it. Us chick magnets are only attracted to chick wires.

(For those forum members needing to clean up the messes I just helped create, please send me your e-mail, and I will e-mail back paper towels.)

Anyway, Karnac says, "May the fleas of a thousand camels nest in your shorts."

OK, I see the ball hit the wire and for whatever reason don't pull the trigger to call it. The coach calls timeout and asks me about it. What can I say? I blew it and I don't know of a rule that will allow me to waive off the basket because the coach called a timeout to ask about it.
What if I let a travel go that led to a basket or double-dribble? Could a coach call a timeout to ask about those plays and I waive the basket off? My answer is to focus and get the call when it happens.

Not a good idea. IMO, just tell the coach you missed the call and try to get the ball back into play ASAP so both coaches will have to coach. Take it on the chin as a lessoned learned and press on.

It didn't get called, that's what we're discussing. And it didn't get called because ...(and I'll go slowly...) The. Rule. Was. Inadvertently. Set. Aside. Yeah, I can tell you're confused.

In most cases, I do the same thing - "I missed it coach."

But, go back to the original sitch, and you are the L in this case. During the TO, your partner, the T, tells you that yes, indeed, the ball did hit the support before falling through the basket, but that's not a violation. You, of course, know that it is a violation. Your partner didn't miss the violation, (s)he mis-applied the rule.

What do you tell the coach who requested the TO?

Again, go back to the play. The T didn't call it because they thought the rule says the ball is still live and in play when it hit the support. There was no question in their mind the ball hit the support. That's what I mean when I say there's no judgement involved. It was only an issue of the T mis-applying the rule by saying the ball is still in play. We aren't talking about a question of whether the ball did or did not hit the support.

Boy, this is a tough one. The wording really makes it confusing. I agree with Jurassic in principle, but I sure can't come up with a good citation to back me up. All the cites appear to point the other way.

I suppose the only way to think about it is to imagine the ball hit the wire, the refs didn't call it, and then the ball came down into the crowd of players, rather than into the basket. By separating the two parts of the play, does it make the situation more clear? I mean the rule that was "set aside" wasn't about the basket itself, it was about the wire being oob. And that call or no-call is not on the list of "correctable".

The probelm with that arguement is that the wording reads "results in" a score being counted or cancelled. I would read that as meaning that the rule that was set aside had to do with the scoring itself, not about whether or not the ball was live or dead. ooo, that's not good wording either. :confused: :confused: :confused:

hhhmmmmmmm.....

1) :rolleyes:

2) You tell the coach that s/he is charged with a TO.

What Tom said. You can say "Hey, I screwed that one up". You still don't have rules justification to go back and fix your mistake. Your mistake was not calling the violation, and that mistake ain't correctable under any rule that I'm aware of.

The mistake that the official made wasn't erroneously counting a score. With no whistle on the play, a live ball went through the basket. That isn't a mistake; it's a legal score under 5-1-1. The official's mistake was not calling an OOB violation. Not calling an OOB violation is not correctable. It ain't listed as one of the 5 under 2-10, is it?

One mistake may have led to a second mistake. The first mistake is not correctable though. There's no rule extant that you can use to correct it. And if you can't correct the first mistake, then you don't have a viable reason by rule to correct the second mistake.

This is what I would do too. Except change number 1 from :rolleyes: to :mad: .

Hey, I'm agreeing with you!! But I can see how the wording is confusing to others who are less enlightened than you and me. And the other problem for me is that it's really hard to admit to myself that you, me and Jeff are all on the same page. :eek:

Again, I agree that we can't go back and make missed calls. If there's any way I can get my partner to admit that there's a chance the ball may not have hit the support, there's the judgement, and there's the way out of the whole mess. "Maybe it did hit the support, coach, but he's not 100% sure."

But in this case, you get together, and your partner is positive the ball hit the support. In this case, do you have a rule citation backing up allowing this dead ball to pass through the net and count as a score? Again, what is your explanation to a coach about the ball definitely hitting the support, but the basket still counts?

Why?

We probably agree on most things, I'd say, believe it or not. Some of the ones that we do disagree on though.......:D

I think this is a slippery slope and if you say this was a misapplication of the rules, then why not travel calls, out of bounds calls, carry calls or any other violation we missed then a score was made? This was not a misapplication of the rules as much as it is a missed judgment. This mistake might motivate this official to actually pick up the rulebook outside of taking a test so they know what a violation is despite if the question was asked on the test. :D

Peace