shot hits support wire

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I went to the store yesterday and was looking for some gear. There was a bunch of Cubs gear on the shelf. There were fewer Dwayne Wade jerseys than Cubs jerseys. That must say something about the constant success of the Cubs year in and year out.

Peace

The stores know what sells and what doesn't.

How many Cardinal jerseys were there?

Ok, I'm done. Leave me alone so I can sulk in peace.

[bob jenkins]

Suppose, immediately after the ball goes through the basket, the coach requests and is granted a TO.

The coach approaches the T official and gets the official to agree that the ball hit the wire, but the official thinks that the ball remains in play after doing so.

The coach approaches the L official and gets the L official to agree that the ball hitting the wire makes the ball dead, but the L official didn't see that happen.

The officials talk and T convinces L that the ball hit the wire; L convinces T that the ball should have been dead and the basket shouldn't have counted.

Now what?

[Hartsy]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Suppose, immediately after the ball goes through the basket, the coach requests and is granted a TO.

The coach approaches the T official and gets the official to agree that the ball hit the wire, but the official thinks that the ball remains in play after doing so.

The coach approaches the L official and gets the L official to agree that the ball hitting the wire makes the ball dead, but the L official didn't see that happen.

The officials talk and T convinces L that the ball hit the wire; L convinces T that the ball should have been dead and the basket shouldn't have counted.

Now what?

If I'm L, I tell my partner that he didn't see anything.

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by Hartsy

If I'm L, I tell my partner that he didn't see anything.

Well that's fine, except Bob's scenario assumes the L saw nothing.

But the L knew the rule.

You gonna claim you don't know the rule?

"I know nuthink! Nuthink!!"

[JRutledge]

I am not sure we can call a violation after the fact when no violation was called in the first place. Of course you might "know the rule" but you have not called a violation at all. My understanding of the timeout to correct a ruling is when we misapply the rule, not to debate a judgment call. I would think if the violation is not called, then you cannot come back later and say, "Oh btw, there was a violation." Unless you can show some evidence of such a scenario in the casebook (or other ruling reference) then it would be hard to come back and call a violation after the fact.

Peace

[just another ref]

2-10 does not apply in this case. This is not an erroneously counted score. The only way this basket does not count is if the ball is called dead when it hits the wire. A violation that is not called is not a violation. There is no provision for going back later and making this call.

[just another ref]

sooner or later. I agree with Rut.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

The officials talk and T convinces L that the ball hit the wire; L convinces T that the ball should have been dead and the basket shouldn't have counted.

Now what?

"Why are you telling me now and why did you not call a violation when the ball hit the wire?"

Peace

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Suppose, immediately after the ball goes through the basket, the coach requests and is granted a TO.

The coach approaches the T official and gets the official to agree that the ball hit the wire, but the official thinks that the ball remains in play after doing so.

The coach approaches the L official and gets the L official to agree that the ball hitting the wire makes the ball dead, but the L official didn't see that happen.

The officials talk and T convinces L that the ball hit the wire; L convinces T that the ball should have been dead and the basket shouldn't have counted.

Now what?

Geeze Bob, can't you see we're busy talkin' about something else?

Anyway, if you're forcing us to stay on-topic, I would have to say it's correctable. In your scenario, the T saw the play, mis-applied a rule by seeing the ball hit the support and not ruling it dead. It wasn't an issue of "not seeing" the violation, or judgement as to whether the ball hit the support or not. Wipe off the basket by team A, do not charge a TO, and give the ball to B for a spot throw-in following the violation. I would then talk to my (obviously) inexperienced partner and tell them we need to not do that again.

[OHBBREF]

If all three of you missed the violation I do not think that you can go back and call the violation after the fact. If one of you saw it they should have called it even late.
If you all missed it then you all are going to have to live with it - and I see no way that you can do anything to correct it, maybe elasticity but no other way out that I can see.

[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.

[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?

[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!

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

Originally Posted by tomegun

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!

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.

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by 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?

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.