With all due respect...I almost always respect my extremely old elders...

One official says foul, another doesn't. Judgement calls. Agreed - we don't go back and change judgement calls.

So, what's your question again?

I am not going back to retroactively change a judgment call because someone saw a violation and did not cause the ball to become dead, then a basket is scored. I am not doing that in any way. You can give all the scenarios you would like. As stated before the correctable error rule is about the basket not be scored or scored erroneously, not any violation that might have been apart of this. I have not heard one casebook ruling or NF interpretation that fits this play. All I have heard is opinions. Since there are no rulings or interpretations that go along with this, I am sticking to my point of view. Now if you feel something else should be done, you will have to answer to your people about it. It is not my job to tell you what to do in your games. I know what I am going to do and I feel I am standing on the correct ruling with the spirit of the rules.

I wish you all a great season.

Peace

I agree we can't go back and call a missed violation, because that would be a judgement call. But, in this case, your partner didn't "miss" the violation (didn't see it, wasn't in position, wasn't looking there, etc.), they mis-applied a rule by calling the ball in play even though it did hit the support.
So, if we shoot an undeserved 1-and-1, and the coach calls our attention to it right away, do we tell them, "Basically, there isn't anything that can be done. We'll try to be more responsible in working on our craft, coach. We'll make sure that mistake doesn't happen again."? Of course not, because there is a way to step into that famous Wayback Machine and fix it.

First, let me apologize profusely for missing this post. You have no idea how badly I feel that I did not respond until now.

1) By "retroactively", let's say the next whistle, just to pick a point in time. That next whistle might be seconds; it might be minutes. It depends on when it occurs naturally in the game. You might also have one or several changes of possession before the next whistle. And....just to make a point, "retroactively" could also mean something that happened last quarter or last half.

2) I don't have a clue about the ins-an-outs of an NCAA shot clock violation, or the rules governing them. I ignored it because there was nothing that I could say either way due to my lack of knowledge.

3) You will never find anything like that in the rule book. You're into philosophy now. Does <b>anything</b> really happen before a whistle blows...whether it be fouls, violations, technicals, etc? What if there <b>was </b>a violation, but it <b>never</b> got called? Does that mean that that violation never occurred?

Now it's my turn. Where in the rule book may I find anything that states an official can go back and retroactively call a foul or a violation?

Playing devils advocate somewhat, but I would definitely take away the basket in Bob's play simply because my partner didn't know the rule. He screwed it up and I would have taken the opportunity to fix it.

When the shot clock came to the local high schools by me a while ago there was a somewhat similar play. I was L. A1 puts up a shot, shot clock horn sounds, ball misses rim and goes OOB at the endline off B1. My partner at T didn't have a whistle so I assumed the ball hit and signal A's ball on the OOB off B. Coach A calls a timeout and Coach B walks on the court..."Dan! The ball missed the rim! How could it be be their ball? It was a shot clock violation!" I huddled with my partner, asked him if the ball missed the rim he said yep, said he froze on the play. I brought the coaches together, explained what happened and it was B's ball on the shot clock violation. Also told coach A he can have his timeout back if he wanted it. Coach A said no, he'll keep the time out, smiled and said good job (not that his opinion meant anything at the time...just pointing out that there are some reasonable ones out there).

The violation did not go away because my partner froze. There was zero judgement involved. It was still a violation, we just administered the penalty late.

And you wouldn't be wrong in doing it that way. As you said, there is no clear-cut interpretation pointing one way or the other in this case. Was it a missed violation, or a mis-applied rule? The fun aspect of this forum is, at least for me, is it forces me to understand rules and definitions better, so that if some strange play happens in the middle of January, I would have some basis for making a ruling one way or another, and not just flipping a coin and guessing.

And I hope you have a good season as well.

Just don't be wearing any of those Cardinal jerseys in my presence, ok?

fed 2.10 ncaa 2.11 says essentially we can adjust the administraion of a penalty in certain situations and within certain timeframes. No one is talking about calling a foul retroactively. What we're talking about is correcting the administration of a penalty after a violation.

Nosiree, BillyJoeBob. You ain't getting off that easy. It ain't a judgment call. The official was <b>sure</b> that he missed a foul.


A player pushes off to get a rebound, and grabs the ball and scores. After the throw-in, the team scored on calls a TO. The coach says "Wassup with the push-off? Howcome no foul?" . One official says "Gee, that was a foul. I shoulda called it". The other official didn't see the play. Can the official now go back and call the foul and wipe out the bucket because a foul happens when it occurs, not when it gets called? And the ball was dead anyway because an official's whistle <b>seldom</b> makes the ball dead?

So....according to you, he can go back and call the foul. Right?

I think the rules are clear. The rules do not say anything about going back and calling a violation that was not originally called. If there is not ruling to support your position, then you cannot just make it up. You have said that this is covered under the correctable error rules and there is no such play that even addresses this kind of situation as legal. Then again, that is my opinion, I am sure you do not agree with it and that is OK with me.

Tell me where you are at and I will make sure I have one on for you when I see you. :D

Peace

Still, the traveling situation is the same. Say the player took the ball from a backcourt throwin, ran 10 steps without dribbling and then dribbled a few times before the shot into his basket. It's not a matter of judgement that there was a travel, but, for some reason, the official didn't call it. It results in a score. A violation should have been called but wasn't.

Not calling the violation in either case didn't result in the score. It just merely allowed play to continue. Other actions (the ball going through the hoop) actually was the cause of the score.

The possible correctable errors that result in a counting a basket that are correctable are

• counting of the shot as 3 vs 2
• counting a made basket when there was a PC foul
• counting a made basket when offensive BI/GT is called
• counting a made basket when an offensive violation (elbows, leaving hte court, etc.) is called with the ball in the air (ball dead immediately)
• etc.

All of these resulted in a score that can be corrected (canceled). Note that all of them have to do with the administration of the scoring in relation to a called infraction or the value of the score, not with a missed infraction.

Cameron,
This is a great way of explaining this topic. Well done.

Quote:
Originally Posted by just another ref
A violation that is not called is a missed call.







It doesn't, but neither does it say a violation is a violation, called or not.

case book 6.4.1
 

Everybody check this one out. This is an example where everybody in the gym knows that a mistake was made, but it is too late to change anything.


This could theoretically be the last possession of a tied game. A's ball, but B comes out of the time-out huddle first. B1 steps out, official hands him the ball, B1 throws to B2, who shoots an uncontested layup to win the game at the buzzer. It was uncontested because everyone knew the ball should be going the other way.

This was a huge mistake, a game-breaker, but not a correctable error.

This example is specifically listed in the case book, I think, because it is relatively common. Obviously space does not permit listing all the possibilities, but the principle is the same.

It's also not a case involving either a violation or a foul.

Other than that... :confused:

This argument was not about fouls and violations, it was about a rule being set aside which erroneously result in a score.