shot hits support wire

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Yep, I'm thinking you read it wrong. In this sitch they expect you to make the call right then, not when the coach requests it during a time-out. The violation could be called before the basket, but the red words indicate it all happened real quick.

Well, really quickly, answer me this - does the case play suggest you are making the correction after the ball becomes dead (after the basket)? And the reason for the correction is the ball never really became "live" in the first place, due to the violation?

Of course they want us to make the call when it happens. But aren't they telling us that we can blow the whistle after another play happens (pass downcourt, catch, layup, basket), and wipe that off, because we are going back in time to call that violation?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Well, really quickly, answer me this - does the case play suggest you are making the correction after the ball becomes dead (after the basket)? And the reason for the correction is the ball never really became "live" in the first place, due to the violation?

Of course they want us to make the call when it happens. But aren't they telling us that we can blow the whistle after another play happens (pass downcourt, catch, layup, basket), and wipe that off, because we are going back in time to call that violation?

Well technically, in 9.2.2sitC didn't the ball become live as soon as B1 had ball at his disposal (grabs ball and moves towards endline).

I don't think the focus of 9.2.2sitC is the cancelling of the basket (that info is superflous in my opinion), the focus is that throwing such a pass should be ruled a violation.

There have been officials in the past (myself included) who would have just blown the play dead and had B1 properly inbound the ball reasoning that the ball never became live so no violation occurred. Now with the clarification of "disposal after a made shot" by the FED, the scenario in 9.2.2sitC clearly is a violation and needs to be ruled as such.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Well technically, in 9.2.2sitC didn't the ball become live as soon as B1 had ball at his disposal (grabs ball and moves towards endline).

I don't think the focus of 9.2.2sitC is the cancelling of the basket (that info is superflous in my opinion), the focus is that throwing such a pass should be ruled a violation.

There have been officials in the past (myself included) who would have just blown the play dead and had B1 properly inbound the ball reasoning that the ball never became live so no violation occurred. Now with the clarification of "disposal after a made shot" by the FED, the scenario in 9.2.2sitC clearly is a violation and needs to be ruled as such.

Exactly.

So wouldn't going back and ruling that the ball hitting the basket support was a violation, and needs to be ruled as such? Even if time is a factor (things happening really quickly), would the time used to throw a pass downcourt, catch it, and make a layup still take more time that a ball hitting a basket support and going through that same basket?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Exactly.

So wouldn't going back and ruling that the ball hitting the basket support was a violation, and needs to be ruled as such? Even if time is a factor (things happening really quickly), would the time used to throw a pass downcourt, catch it, and make a layup still take more time that a ball hitting a basket support and going through that same basket?

I see your point. In my opinion 9.2.2sitC is written poorly in that it isn't stating when the official recognized the violation. As I wrote earlier, I think the scoring the basket portion should have been left out the scenario and the focus should have been just squarely on calling the violation for not properly inbounding the ball.

[Jimgolf]

I'm a little confused. What is the statute of limitations for correcting grammatical or spelling errors?

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

I see your point. In my opinion 9.2.2sitC is written poorly in that it isn't stating when the official recognized the violation. As I wrote earlier, I think the scoring the basket portion should have been left out the scenario and the focus should have been just squarely on calling the violation for not properly inbounding the ball.

I'm not sure it's poorly written. Maybe they left it vague on purpose. But one thing that isn't vague is the fact we can have a live ball, then a dead ball, then go back and call the violation. In other words, getting it right.

Now, I will still go back and say I'm not going to get into a judgement discussion with my partner about whether or not the player really was completely OOB. Just like we are not going to get into a discussion about whether the ball did or did not hit the support. But, if my partner tells me, "Uh, yea, I saw him still in-bounds, but I thought it was ok because the player intended to take the ball OOB...", then we're going to correct it, just like the rule book says we can.