shot hits support wire

[JRutledge]

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

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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

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?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

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.

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.

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

And I hope you have a good season as well.

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

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

Peace