At least they're both fruit. Now, If you would've said apples and bowling balls...
You're right. But, you can jump in your Semi-Wayback Machine and go back and correct inadvertant rule set-asides that lead to erroneously counting a score, within a semi-wayback time period.

I have an advantage in the fact that I'll see Mary Struckhoff later this week. If I get a chance, I'll see if she knows the difference between apples and bowling balls.

Yeah yeah, I know, you always call everything correctly. But that aint the question. I suppose you can't bring yourself to answer it. Well, according to the rules, yes, it's still a violation even though someone (not you of course) doesn't blow the whistle. The only thing the whistle does is allow the penalty to be enforced. The violation still occurs. And you know what we call it if we ignore a chance to fix it and apply the penalty but we don't? We call that a huge **** up.
Well that's good for you, most of us would just love to figure out a way to get fed 2.10 and ncaa 2.11 out of our lives.

As for going back into time....if you blow the whistle in my shot clock sitch you have done exactly that.

Of course you're bright enough to not directly answer my question on that play...that's OK. I think we both know the answer.

Basketball Rules Fundamentals #16 says....
 

The official's whistle seldom causes the ball to become dead. (it is already dead) We understand that this means it is dead when the foul/violation occurs. I believe this is the basic concept that some have referred to here.

BUT, a violation that is not called is not a violation. There are countless infractions in every game that are not called. The statement above, as I see it, is needed so that the speed of the whistle is not an issue. Picture the original situation as a last second heave from 60 feet. The ball is about to go over the top of the board, but instead hits this wire and travels straight down through the net at high speed, before the ref has time to blow the whistle. But the ref did see the violation, so he can still blow the whistle as the ball is bouncing on the floor and wave off the basket. True, the whistle does not cause the ball to be dead in this case, the violation does. But, without a whistle, we have no violation.

Yup....and how about the violations during a game that are <b>deliberately</b> not called? Three seconds? Ten seconds for a FT shooter? The officials that think that a palm in the back-court with no pressure shouldn't be called? Little shuffles at the end of blow-outs?

If a coach questions any of those, are you prepared to go back and call them too? You <b>do</b> know that they also actually were violations, remember, same as a ball hitting a wire.

Any set of rules or policies are written with some underlying assumptions. (Otherwise, the rulebook would be as thick as the Bible). One of them is that the Officials working a contest are knowledgeable regarding the rules, procedures and mechanics. Hence the verbiage on some of the rules. Hence, no rule or even Case Study to cover this scenario. But I agree that the error made was not calling the violation. It was not the awarding of the basket. Because the "decision" not not kill the play was made by T, the ball remained live. A live ball went through the basket. I see no way to take the points away.

After the game, I would make it a point to discuss the call with T. But I would also let the assignor know what happened. I would rather he heard it from me than from the coach.

Apples and what are you talking about. This whole thread was (at least in the beginning) about a rule being missinterpreted and resulting in points being scored. It was never about the officials missing the call they chose not to based on the missinterpretation. The Coaches TO in Bobs post was called immediately to have the officials discuss the situation. Correctable based on Fed 2-10 and NCAA 2-11.

Dan I apologize for not answering your question. What was your question again? :) I think I put enough smiley faces in my response to you to indicate I was half joking about it and there is no way I will ever say I don't make mistakes. If I know there is a shot clock violation I blow the whistle. I don't know what you want me to say to answer your question. If there is a shot clock violation and we play on - for some reason - the coach's timeout does not make this huge difference that many are making it out to be. This whole conversation opens the door for a coach to call a timeout and question every judgement call.

No it doesn't

You know as well as I do we have ways with dealing with coaches who do this.

Anyway, I'm glad you agree that you'll fix it after the fact if a rule is set aside inadvertently and a goal is scored in the shot clock case.

I just don't see how *that* case is any different from Bob's case, that's all. You and some others seem to be saying you won't do it simply because the coach brought it up. Doesn't seem right to me.

Anyway interesting discussion, we're still friends. :)

Can you provide a rules reference?

You obviously don't understand the point that I was trying to make.

That's unfortunate imo.

Jump stop....same thing?
 

What do you do if a player A drives, jump stop, pivot on right foot, shot successful. Coach calls time out (before ball is inbounded) and approaches you and pleads his case for the travelling. During the TO you talk to your partner and he says...."what a dumbazz coach, he is trying to tell me that you can't pivot after a jump stop." You realize that your partner has screwed up the rule. Do you correct that and take points off of the board?

A violation that is not called is not a violation.

2.7.2 The officials shall conduct the game in accordance with the rules. This includes: Determining when the ball becomes dead.


Notice this is written in present tense. Therefore, I further conclude that there is no provision for looking back and saying that, at a certain point, the ball became dead.

Picture this: During a loose ball, there is a pile of bodies, both officials hear a loud smack, but neither can see what happened. A1 comes out of the pile with the ball, but loses it out of bounds. He then turns to the official, and displays a hand print on his arm. He points at B1, "That guy fouled me!"
B1 confesses. "Yes, I did. Sorry about that." Now everybody knows about it. There is even still visual evidence of it. BUT IT'S TOO LATE TO CALL IT.

Great post, Tex.

Yeahbut I can't see where that has anything to do with a violation. It just says we're allowed to determine when the ball becomes dead.

Is there something else in there you forgot to copy/paste?

The whole argument on this thread is about whether to count the basket or not. The only reason not to count it would be that the ball was declared dead when it hit the wire, which was an out-of-bounds violation. The violation was not called, the ball was not dead. The basket counts. End of story.