shot hits support wire

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Dan_ref

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

Is there a rule that you can cite that will allow an official to call a violation retroactively?

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Is there a rule that you can cite that will allow an official to call a violation retroactively?

Coupla points -

- what do you mean by "retroactively?" Seconds? Minutes? Until the next dead ball?

- I already gave an example where a shot clock violation can be called "retroactively". You were smart enough to igore it.

- What I'm asking JAR to do is show in the rule book where it says "it aint a violation until the whistle blows". I don't think it sez that anywhere. Do you?

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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.

Oh...I didn't realize we had to stick to only 1 topic per thread. My apologies, but...

...do you agree that a violation occurs even though there was no whistle? Or is not a violation until the whistle sounds?

That's all I wanted to know, thanks

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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.

Well, not quite.

It wasn't just that the violation was not "called". I would say the official did make a call - his call was the ball was still live even though it hit the support. This was not a judgement call, but a rather a clear mis-application of a rule, which resulted directly in a unmerited counting of a score.

So, what is the definition of a "call"? If we don't have a clear answer to that, how do we know for certain we can't go back and correct or change such a thing?

I will agree, we are never going to go back, even for a few seconds, to argue judgement calls. (Although, we even do that - if a partner disagrees with a 2-point or 3-point basket, we can go back and change a partner's judgement call.) In this case, we are not going to go back and discuss whether one of us saw the ball hit the support; that's judgement. In the jump-stop example, we could get together and easily tell the coach, "In our judgement, that's a legal move." and get into the locker room and show your partner where they screwed up. You could even do the same thing here, where after you get together, you would try to convince your partner they may not have seen the ball hit the support, therefore, now it clearly becomes a judgement call and you move on. But if they are insistent on saying they saw the ball hit the support, and their call is that the ball was still live as it passed through the basket, now it's no longer strictly a judgement call, and it now becomes a misinterpretation of a rule.

Hence, not quite end of story.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Dan_ref

...do you agree that a violation occurs even though there was no whistle?

Absolutely not. A violation that is not called is a missed call.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Dan_ref

...do you agree that a violation occurs even though there was no whistle? Or is not a violation until the whistle sounds?

That's all I wanted to know, thanks

Do you agree that a foul occurs even though there was no whistle? Or is it not a foul until the whistle sounds?

Or can you go back and call a foul?

That's all that I wanted to know, thanks.

[Camron Rust]

I think the point being discussed really revolves around whether the words "results in" in the correctable error rule mean:

1. immediate and directly related to the rule being set aside.
2. subsequent actions that follow setting aside a rule.

It is my belief that the (1) is intended. If it were to be (2), then an obvious but missed traveling in the backcourt would be subject to a correctable error if the team scores on that possession and the other team's coach questions it. The score wouldn't have happend if the travel had been called. We don't go back and get that. So, if we don't call it when it happens, we don't go back and get an OOB violation, even if it is just a fraction of a second before the score.

The rule set aside must be directly related to the counting or canceling the goal itself, not a prior infractions.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Do you agree that a foul occurs even though there was no whistle? Or is it not a foul until the whistle sounds?

Or can you go back and call a foul?

That's all that I wanted to know, thanks.

Actually, if an official decides that the play is a foul, then then the foul happens when it occurs, not when the official blew the whistle. Rule fundamental - the official's whistle seldom causes the ball to become dead, it is already dead. If, in the official's judegment, no foul occured, then there is no foul to go back and correct, right?

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Absolutely not. A violation that is not called is a missed call.

Show me in the rule book where it says that.

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Do you agree that a foul occurs even though there was no whistle? Or is it not a foul until the whistle sounds?

Or can you go back and call a foul?

That's all that I wanted to know, thanks.

Since you ignored my questions I don't fell bad ignoring yours.

[tomegun]

Dan, not including your shot clock example would you go back in time and change something after a coach calls a timeout to question it? Have you been playing devil's advocate this whole time?

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I think the point being discussed really revolves around whether the words "results in" in the correctable error rule mean:

1. immediate and directly related to the rule being set aside.
2. subsequent actions that follow setting aside a rule.

It is my belief that the (1) is intended. If it were to be (2), then an obvious but missed traveling in the backcourt would be subject to a correctable error if the team scores on that possession and the other team's coach questions it. The score wouldn't have happend if the travel had been called. We don't go back and get that. So, if we don't call it when it happens, we don't go back and get an OOB violation, even if it is just a fraction of a second before the score.

The rule set aside must be directly related to the counting or canceling the goal itself, not a prior infractions.

Camron - I agree this is the main discussion. I guess what I'm wondering is in the basket support play, the play directly results in a (by rule) dead ball passing through the hoop, but being counted as a score. In your missed travel, you can still say it was the official's judgement in ruling the play was not a travel. Really bad judgement if it was obvious, but judgement nontheless. Maybe a closer example would be a player directly inder the basket steps OOB while going up for a reverse layup. Your partner says, yes, he saw the player step OOB before releasing the shot, but that's legal because the player had already started their shooting motion. Of course, after you say "WTF!" a couple of times, can you correct that call? Should you correct that call?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Actually, if an official decides that the play is a foul, then then the foul happens when it occurs, not when the official blew the whistle. Rule fundamental - the official's whistle seldom causes the ball to become dead, it is already dead. If, in the official's judegment, no foul occured, then there is no foul to go back and correct, right?

So......if a player pushes off, gets a rebound and scores... then the team scored on throws the ball in and calls a TO... and the coach asks why the foul wasn't called...then one official says "yeah, that was a foul"......you now can go back and call the foul and wipe out the basket. Right? Because the foul happens when it occurs and not when the official blows his whistle? Right? Because the ball was dead anyway since the foul occurred because the official's whistle seldom causes the ball to become dead? Right?

With all due respect.....

Naw, on second thought, I'd better not say it.

Lemme know when you're gonna try that one out. I can sell tickets.

[tomegun]

Violation - a rules infraction of the type listed in rule 9.
One of the officials' duties is to determine when the ball becomes dead.
I guess Dan is right, a violation that isn't called is still a violation. However, there still isn't a rule that allows us (no I'm not perfect Dan ) to go back and fix what occurred because a violation was missed. This is where we must be responsible. Responsible to tell the coach that basically there isn't anything that can be done, responsible to work on our craft so these types of mistakes don't happen and responsible for knowing the rules - and not cheating on the test!

[tomegun]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

With all due respect.....

Naw, on second thought, I'd better not say it.

Lemme know when you're gonna try that one out. I can sell tickets.

What was you going to say?