shot hits support wire
 

Hey guys. What are your thoughts on this play?

A–1’s try hits the ring and bounces straight up and touches a wire above the backboard and drops down and passes through the basket. Official allows play to continue. Coach of team B complains to the official that this is erroneously counting a score and can be corrected under 2–10 the correctable error rule. Official rules 2–10 does not apply. Is the official correct?

While the ball hitting such a wire shoud be a violation, this is not a correctable error. The error was in missing an earlier violation. A live ball went through the net and was counted properly. This is no different than when the shooter takes 4 steps while holding the ball just before the shooting and deciding to cancel the score after the coach asks you about it.

This is a violation on A1 for causing the ball to go out of bounds on the shot attempt. Basket would not count because the ball would be dead and ruled out of bounds. If no one saw the ball hit the wire, then everything that took place would continue and the basket would count. This is clearly not a correctable error situation if someone did not call a violation.

Peace

I agree with Camron.

I only agree with part of JRut's response. The signature line leaves something to be desired... :p :D

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. :D

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.

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?

I am sorry for hijacking this tread, but I "gots" to do it.
 

They had a lot of Wood and Prior jerseys and the store was stocked. Usually things that sell are hard to find.

BTW, get used to this; you will hear this the entire year. Now TJ has seen his team win a Championship in his lifetime. ;)

Peace

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

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

Peace

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!!"

http://www.wklh.com/pod/PODCAST_IMAGE_110.jpg

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

my interpretation
 

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.

It was bound to happen.....
 

sooner or later. I agree with Rut.:D

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. :)

Because the official "allows play to continue", does this imply he/she saw the ball hit the wire and misapplied a rule that says the ball should be dead? And if a rule is misapplied then it is correctable.

Rules citation to back that statement, please.

Did I miss something? When were we given the allowance to go back and fix one of our mistakes? This isn't the football board is it? :D

I am a new official and am trying to understand the subtleties of the rules so please be patient.

I would cite 2-10-1. Officials may correct an error if a rule is inadvertantly set aside and results in:
d. Erroneously counting or canceling a score.

The rule I thought the official set aside was 7-1-2d. The ball is out of bounds when it touches or is touched by:

d. The Ceiling, overhead equipment, or supports.

Because the situation says the official "allows play to continue" I thought it meant he/she saw the ball contact the wire and inadvertantly set aside 7-1-2d. Perhaps I am reading too much into the question but why would the official allow play to continue?

Because officials make mistakes.
If you go back and correct errors like this you might as well report the T to the table that you will have to give to one of the coaches.

If we could go back and fix things, we would all be close to perfect! :D

The sitch we're talking about is Bob's scenario, where one official does see A1's shot hit the support, decides it's still in play anyway, and the ball goes through the basket. B's coach calls TO to discuss a correctable error. ehcco gave the appropriate rules references. I would think letting it go, and not cancelling the score, would be more likely to end up with the T. Which rules reference do you use to let it go? Remember, we aren't talking about arguing a judgement call, but an official setting aside a rule (seeing the ball hit the support and calling it in play).

This is what I was thinking as well. Good job referencing the appropriate rules ehcco.

The error didn't "result in erroneously counting...a score." THe error resulted in allowing the ball to stay in play, and that's not correctable. Yes, there was a score, but that wasn't the error. The item you cite refers to things like BI, 3-point shots, and so forth.

Thanks M&M Guy. You said exactly what I was thinking when I asked my question.

Tomegun, I interpreted allow as the official saw the ball hit the wire and knew the ball should be dead but allowed play to continue and then was questioned/caught by the coach for not applying a rule properly. I did not read into the play the official allowed play to continue because of a mistake. That is why I asked if I was reading too much into the question.

BTW, I am good for a few mistakes per game myself. :D

Unfortunately, the appropriate rule cited isn't appropriate. Or relevant. There is no rule extant that will allow an official to go back in time and change a <b>judgment</b> call.

<i>"Gee, now that I think of it, that shoulda been a foul on A77 2 minutes ago. I think that I'll go back and call it".</i>

Don't think so, folks. :)

Don't matter. There's no rule in the book that will allow you to go back and change the non-call.

What ever, I stand by the fact the the correct rule was stated. You have not provided anything to support these do not apply. As Bobs post is I would stand by this interp. Correct or not(I don't care which) I feel It is supportable by the quoted rules citation.

I know you wont agree, but then if anyone disagrees with you, you take issue.

Try 2-10-1 it does say Officials may correct an error if a rule is inadvertantly set aside and results in:
d. Erroneously counting or canceling a score.

But was there a score? In order for there to be a score, a live ball must pass through the net. The ball was dead when it the support. Therefore, aren't you erroneously counting a score?

Juulie, I certainly understand what you're saying, and it opens a messy can o' worms. But, in a real-world situation, I'm going to have more problems telling one coach we're still going to count the score even though everyone saw the ball hit the support, rather than telling the first coach we're going to cancel the score because my partner mis-applied the rule.

I absolutely agree - we will <B>never</B> go back and change judgement calls. But, in Bob's scenario, this wasn't a judgement call. The T saw the ball hit the support, and ruled it to be in play. Where's the judgement?

Let us say you have a traveling call that was missed and you have a shot after the missed violation that goes in. Then the coach wants to call a timeout to make sure the basket is cancelled because we missed the traveling violation that we never called. YOU CANNOT DO THAT. If the violation was not called, then you cannot go back and say, "Well the basket should not be called because we never called the travel." That is not the purpose of the correctable error rule.

Peace

Oh? And how did the ball <b>become</b> dead <b>when</b> it hit the support, Karnac? Rule 6-7 is what you're looking for. That's the rule that tells you exactly when a live ball becomes dead. Now, pick out something from R6-7 that tells us <b>why</b> the ball became dead <b>when</b> it hit the support.

Please note that "Shut Up" will not be eligible for part marks.

Agreed. In the officials' judgement, there wasn't a travel. That's a good example of a judgement call.

Yup, now what </b>rule</b> was inadvertantly set aside? You tell me. Cite a rule.

What do you mean this was not a judgment call? If you see the ball hit the wire/support of anything that would be considered out of bounds, that is a judgment call all the way. There are times when it looks like it hits the supports but it does not. Then to top it off, it was not called when it took place. Then we allow a timeout to discuss a violation that was not called. I am sorry, it is too late.

Peace

errr....it didn't became dead because a rule was inadvertently set aside that resulted in the erroneous counting of a score...

geeze, that looks familiar. Where have I read that before...?

6-7-9 - Ball becomes dead, or reamins dead, when a violation (as in 9-2 thru 9-13) occurs.
9-3-1 - A player shall not cause the ball to go out of bounds.
And, finally, what caused the ball to be out of bounds?
9-1-2 (c) and (d) - The ball is out of bounds when it touches or is touched by ...supports...

And finally, Karnac says, "May a diseased yak leave a present in your sock drawer."

I would not call this situation a correctable error. If the coach wants to talk about it, I'd explain that if it did hit the wire, we just blew a violation such as travelling, apologize and assure him we won't miss it again. Then in the locker room at the half or after the game, I'd make sure to look at the oob rules with the official that didn't know the support wire was oob.

Go back and read Bob's play. There's no judgement involved. The T saw the ball hit the support.

Now, in real life, if I'm the L I'm going to talk to my (obviously inexperienced) T and see if there's a chance judgement might be involved, which gives us a way out of this mess. Then, yes, we do not go back and change a possible judgement call.

But what if the T is absolutely certain the ball hit the support. No question about it. What rule do you use to tell the one coach, "Yep, the ball definitely hit the support, but we're going to count the basket."?

try this.....
 

This rule would apply when the ball hits the wire, the official blows it dead, the ball is awarded out of bounds to team B, but the scorer counts the basket anyway. "Sorry, I was talking to my wife on the cell phone, and didn't realize what the call was. I thought you had called goaltending or something. My bad."

As others have said, counting the score in this case is not the error. The mistake is a failure by the official to call a violation.There is no provision for going back in time to call a missed violation.

And what violation under 9-3-1 and 9-1-2(c&d) got <b>called</b>?

How did the ball <b>become</b> dead, Karnac, if <b>no</b> violation <b>was</b> called?

Again, did the ball actually become dead when it hit the guy wire?

And.....why do they call it a "guy wire" anyway? Why don't they call it a "chick wire"? Not fair! Does Rainmaker know about this?

That's a book keeping error. The part you're missing is there was no missed violation in Bob's sitch. The T admitted the ball hit the wire but he didn't realize that made the ball OOB.

He inadvertently set aside a rule leading to the erroneous counting of a score.

A better question might be to ask what rule you should use to tell either coach, "Yep, the ball definitely hit the support, but we're <b>not</b> going to count the basket."

I'm still waiting for an answer to that one.

Oh? If it wasn't missed, then it musta got called. Right?

Sooooooo.....<b>when</b> did it get called?:confused: When did the whistle blow and the wire-hitting violation get called? When it hit the wire? Next Tuesday?

Calling all violations are judgment calls. Part of that judgment is whether we see it or not. It is still a judgment call and part of it being a judgment call is recognizing what you saw, and then calling it. I have missed travel calls, carry calls and even out of bounds calls when I "thought" I saw something and I never blew the whistle. I do not understand why because he saw the ball hit the support, means there was no judgment involved? Why did he not call the violation if he clearly saw a violation committed?

I would tell this young official, when you see a violation, you need to call a violation. You cannot take several minutes later and decide you now need to enforce a violation that was never called. I would tell them to chalk it up as a learning experience and next time make the call and not wait to make the call.

Peace

In other words, he missed the (violation) call.

Where does it say in the rule that the violation had to be <b>called</b>? The rule only says it's a violation when it <b>occurs</b>. It's our judgement as to whether it has occured.

See above.
I know it's not a chick wire, because I'm not attracted to it. Us chick magnets are only attracted to chick wires.

(For those forum members needing to clean up the messes I just helped create, please send me your e-mail, and I will e-mail back paper towels.)

Anyway, Karnac says, "May the fleas of a thousand camels nest in your shorts."

OK, I see the ball hit the wire and for whatever reason don't pull the trigger to call it. The coach calls timeout and asks me about it. What can I say? I blew it and I don't know of a rule that will allow me to waive off the basket because the coach called a timeout to ask about it.
What if I let a travel go that led to a basket or double-dribble? Could a coach call a timeout to ask about those plays and I waive the basket off? My answer is to focus and get the call when it happens.

Not a good idea. IMO, just tell the coach you missed the call and try to get the ball back into play ASAP so both coaches will have to coach. Take it on the chin as a lessoned learned and press on.

It didn't get called, that's what we're discussing. And it didn't get called because ...(and I'll go slowly...) The. Rule. Was. Inadvertently. Set. Aside. Yeah, I can tell you're confused.

In most cases, I do the same thing - "I missed it coach."

But, go back to the original sitch, and you are the L in this case. During the TO, your partner, the T, tells you that yes, indeed, the ball did hit the support before falling through the basket, but that's not a violation. You, of course, know that it is a violation. Your partner didn't miss the violation, (s)he mis-applied the rule.

What do you tell the coach who requested the TO?

Again, go back to the play. The T didn't call it because they thought the rule says the ball is still live and in play when it hit the support. There was no question in their mind the ball hit the support. That's what I mean when I say there's no judgement involved. It was only an issue of the T mis-applying the rule by saying the ball is still in play. We aren't talking about a question of whether the ball did or did not hit the support.

Boy, this is a tough one. The wording really makes it confusing. I agree with Jurassic in principle, but I sure can't come up with a good citation to back me up. All the cites appear to point the other way.

I suppose the only way to think about it is to imagine the ball hit the wire, the refs didn't call it, and then the ball came down into the crowd of players, rather than into the basket. By separating the two parts of the play, does it make the situation more clear? I mean the rule that was "set aside" wasn't about the basket itself, it was about the wire being oob. And that call or no-call is not on the list of "correctable".

The probelm with that arguement is that the wording reads "results in" a score being counted or cancelled. I would read that as meaning that the rule that was set aside had to do with the scoring itself, not about whether or not the ball was live or dead. ooo, that's not good wording either. :confused: :confused: :confused:

hhhmmmmmmm.....

1) :rolleyes:

2) You tell the coach that s/he is charged with a TO.

What Tom said. You can say "Hey, I screwed that one up". You still don't have rules justification to go back and fix your mistake. Your mistake was not calling the violation, and that mistake ain't correctable under any rule that I'm aware of.

The mistake that the official made wasn't erroneously counting a score. With no whistle on the play, a live ball went through the basket. That isn't a mistake; it's a legal score under 5-1-1. The official's mistake was not calling an OOB violation. Not calling an OOB violation is not correctable. It ain't listed as one of the 5 under 2-10, is it?

One mistake may have led to a second mistake. The first mistake is not correctable though. There's no rule extant that you can use to correct it. And if you can't correct the first mistake, then you don't have a viable reason by rule to correct the second mistake.

This is what I would do too. Except change number 1 from :rolleyes: to :mad: .

Hey, I'm agreeing with you!! But I can see how the wording is confusing to others who are less enlightened than you and me. And the other problem for me is that it's really hard to admit to myself that you, me and Jeff are all on the same page. :eek:

Again, I agree that we can't go back and make missed calls. If there's any way I can get my partner to admit that there's a chance the ball may not have hit the support, there's the judgement, and there's the way out of the whole mess. "Maybe it did hit the support, coach, but he's not 100% sure."

But in this case, you get together, and your partner is positive the ball hit the support. In this case, do you have a rule citation backing up allowing this dead ball to pass through the net and count as a score? Again, what is your explanation to a coach about the ball definitely hitting the support, but the basket still counts?

Why?

We probably agree on most things, I'd say, believe it or not. Some of the ones that we do disagree on though.......:D

I think this is a slippery slope and if you say this was a misapplication of the rules, then why not travel calls, out of bounds calls, carry calls or any other violation we missed then a score was made? This was not a misapplication of the rules as much as it is a missed judgment. This mistake might motivate this official to actually pick up the rulebook outside of taking a test so they know what a violation is despite if the question was asked on the test. :D

Peace

Yup, just gave it above. A live ball passing through the basket is a legal score as per rule 5-1-1. There never was a dead ball that went through the basket. Nothing happened, by rule(specifically rule 6-7) to ever make the ball dead.

My explanation is what Tomegun posted above...." I blew it and I don't know of a rule that will allow me to waive off the basket". The condensed version is "sh!t happens". Then get the ball back into play asap. Good advice imo.

I say we missed it and get the game started. What else is there for me to do? I'm not going to waive off a basket and go back in time.

But it wasn't a live ball, was it? I gave you all the references. Can you give me any references to say that a ball that the officials rule hits the support is still a live ball? And the rule we would use to waive/wave off (dis-allow) the basket would be the correctable error rule - erroneously counting a basket as a result of setting aside a rule.

I know this isn't a real good reason, but sometimes the simplest explanation is the best way to go. I would rather explain to one coach the reason we're taking away their basket is because the ball hit the support. That would be easier than trying to explain to the other coach why we're allowing the basket, even though we know the ball did hit the support.

But I do agree with the comments about "sh!it happens", and getting the ball back in play ASAP. That's still important.

Not meaning to sound like a smartazz, but do you say the same thing when you have a player shoot a 1-and-1, they make both, then the table buzzes and tells you that they weren't in the bonus; it was only the 6th foul. Do you just tell the coach, "Sorry, we missed it; we're certainly not going to waive off two baskets and go back in time"?

It is only a dead ball if you call a violation. You do not call a violation, then how can you go back and say..."Oh by the way, that was supposed to be a dead ball but we did not know it until now." You know you cannot do that.

Well when you are the Referee on the game, you have a right to make that decision. If I am the Referee on the game, we are not going back in time to cancel a basket based on a violation that was not called. All you are going to do is open every non-called violation for possible debate if you follow through with your application of this rule.

Peace

No?

The shot clock horn sounds as A1's shot is in the air. The ball clearly does not hit the rim. The shot clock resets to 35. A2 gets control of the ball and puts in a layup for 2 points. No one blows the whistle.

You are T. You saw the ball miss the rim. What do you do next?

The rules don't say that. The rule states it's a violation when it occurs, not when it is called. And it's up to us to decide if it occurs. If we didn't see it happen, it didn't occur. In this case, the official <b>did</B> see it happen, so it did occur. This isn't about one official over-ruling another, or questioning the judgement of the call, it's the application of the rule.

1) I already have. There was no freaking whistle blown to make the ball dead. You can't just point at the ball and say "Ball, you're dead!". Your references aren't valid because, by rule, those violations that you cited <b>never</b> happened.

2) You're right. That isn't a good reason. Do you honestly think that is easier than trying to explain to the other coach that you're cancelling his basket, but you don't really have a rule that will allow you to do so? Good luck with that, Karnack. You're gonna need all of your magic tricks to get way with that one. And....how are you gonna explain it to your assignor when he asks you what rule you used to make that decision? I've heard that some of them can be real pricks too.:D

OK, I'll try you then:

The shot clock horn sounds as A1's shot is in the air. The ball clearly does not hit the rim. The shot clock resets to 35. A2 gets control of the ball and puts in a layup for 2 points. No one blows the whistle.

You are T. You saw the ball miss the rim. What do you do next?

Apples and onions, M. One screw-up is covered under correctable errors in the rulebook. The other screw-up isn't covered anywhere in the rule book.

You have to call a violation to make the ball dead. It would be no different if we had a GT that was not called (and obvious to everyone) and play continues. The ball is never dead because there never was call that acknowledged a violation took place.

Misapplying a rule is when we make a call then we put the ball in the wrong place or award the improper amount of FTs. Missing a violation is not simply misapplying rules.

Peace

Or, try this "reverse" of my play:

A1 attempts a shot. The ball hits the rim, then bounces up and hits the top of the backboard. While the ball is bouncing on the top of the backboard, T blows the whistle and declares the ball OOB. The ball then drops off the front of the backboard and through the basket. The coach immediately (but politely, and in a state that allows the coaching box) jumps up and says, "The top of the backboard is not OOB, and the basket should count."

I think we're all declaring this an inadvertant whistle, the try didn't end, the basket counts, B gets the ball for a throw-in anywhere along the endline.

But, what if the coach doesn't realize what T called until the next time the ball becomes dead? Can the error be corrected?

Ok, let me try this one:
Partner signals a good 3-point attempt. The other coach calls TO and asks you to confer whether it was a 3 or a 2. You didn't see it, but your partner tells you, "Oh, yea, the shooter's feet were on the line, but that's still a good 3-pointer. The feet have to be completely inside the arc to be a 2-pointer." So, you didn't see the play, your partner did, and in their judgement it's a 3-point basket. What do you do? Would it make a difference if it was with .05 seconds left in the game, and the it makes a difference between a 1 point game or a tie? (Well, besides shooting your partner right there on the spot?)

I will answer it. If I see that it did not hit the rim and I did not blow the whistle we will play on.

His primary and I did not see the entire play. Its a THREE!!! Hey wait do we have the use of the monitor?

1. If this is a quick rebound/shot and the shot clock would NOT have expired, we play on.
2. If this is a quick rebound/shot and the shot clock would have expired, I put air in the whistle and give B the ball.
3. If this is a rebound with time before the shot, we stop play and put the correct time back on the shot clock.

It is a tough sell to stop play if the team is about to score and you know the shot clock wouldn't have expired before the shot.

Asking me, and many of the people who have responded, is close to useless. I would like to think that my reflex would be to put air in the whistle when I know the ball has hit the wire. If I'm not sure I shouldn't be blowing the whistle. :D

M&M,

I learned long time ago that some things you cannot correct. If your partner does not have the ability to make decisions on their own, I am not going to come in and debate a call. We are going to make mistakes and sometimes mistakes will be big. I cannot give a rules clinic every game to partners that see the entire play. If there is a problem, that is something the assignor or state will have to deal with. All I could do in this case is tell the coach that I did not see it and move on.

Peace

You're muddying the waters here Tom. Only the 2nd case comes close to answering my question. My question is if there was no whistle as A2 quickly puts the rebound in after an obvious shot clock violation do you play on & live with it or blow the whistle and take the points off. Those are the 2 choices. But that aint the question, is it? The question from Bob was if the T sees the ball hit the wire but does not know the rule do you play on & live with it or take the points off after the coach calls TO to discuss. Those are the 2 choices.

Well said. Don't blow the whistle unless you are 100% sure.

Well said. The correctable error rules do not mention uncalled violations.

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. :eek:

So, let me get this straight. During the TO, you get with your partner, they tell you their reason for calling the basket a 3 instead of 2, and your response will be, :shrug: "Some things I cannot correct."? I would have a very upset coach ripping me a new one for not correcting my partner's ruling, and my assignor would rip me a second one for the same thing. You're not arguing seeing the foot on the line or not (judgement), you're arguing whether the foot being on the line is still considered a 3-point attempt (rule interpretation). That's a correctable error, by rule. And if "All I could do in this case is tell the coach that I did not see it and move on", I would be moving on to a different league pretty quickly.

Apples and kumquats.

Both of which sound rather tasty this time of day.

ALL SITUATIONS CANNOT BE CORRECTED!!! That is just the way it is. It is only correctable if the calling official knows they screwed up. You said that one official did not see the play. Now you want me to correct something I did not see. I get paid the same amount of money that my partners get. If they cannot do their job, they will not be there for long. It is not my job to save people from those kinds of mistakes.

Peace

Sigh...

I'm not sure you read either Bob's or my play completely. I'm not asking you to correct something you didn't see. I'm asking if you would correct a partner's interpretation of a rule. If a partner tells you the ball hit the support, and they ruled it still in play, would you let it go? If a partner tells you they ruled a shot a 3-pointer because the shooter's foot wasn't completely within the line, but only on the line, would you just let it go? Remember, in both cases, there has been a TO already called for the crew to discuss this. I'm not asking you to stop play to find out what your partner called. either.

I would advise my parnter on the correct rule -- its up to him if he wants to listen or not. Either way this screw up will be notified to my association by me -- especially if he didn't want to listen.

If my partner comes to me like this and he is 100% sure and I am NOT 100% sure I will listen to him and change whatever call I just butchered.

However on the hitting the wire after a shot -- thats a missed call that I am not going to even dabble in. But the 3 is an easy fix -- hey coach we got this wrong it was a 3 not a 2 -- and assuming it hasnt been like 5-10 minutes later.

I don't think I muddied (:D muddied) up the waters, I think you did. Anyway, if there is an obvious shot clock violation I blow my whistle and the bucket doesn't count. That is part of officiating with a shot clock. Again, if nobody calls the violation, is it really a violation? If a tree falls... :)

In the original situation, I live with it. I think several people have said this before. If you show me a rule that clearly says I can go back into time and change a mistake...well, I won't use it anyway! :D

Sigh....

Apples and watermelons again.

The first case is a missed violation. There is no rule that says you can hop in your Wayback Machine, go back in time and call missed violations.

The second case is a correctable error. See case book plays 2-10-1SitF&G.

Apples and watermelons----a non-correctable missed violation vs. a correctable error. One isn't covered under the rules; one is.

Why are we talking about a coach calling a timeout like it is the holy grail or something?
I would not waive off the basket because I have no support in the rule book to do so. My partner might feel like crap and I might feel like crap, but there isn't anything that should be done. Let the coach take his/her timeout and get the game going. Learn from this and don't let it happen again. I don't know about anybody else, but my first few years were not all peaches and cream. Getting bit is sometimes the best way to learn.
Whether a basket is a three pointer or not is something totally different. Once I'm made aware of the shooter's foot being on the line I will look to the scorer and say, "The basket is a two." After that, we put the ball in play and talk about the rule at the next opportunity. Delaying the game for this will only cause problems. If for some reason I'm not the R or my partner won't budge I will say, "For the record, I think we should do...." and we put the ball back into play. When the crap hits the fan, I went on record saying we should do the right thing and my partner(s) chose to do otherwise.

That dang live ball sure will make the coach start thinking about other things! :D

At least they're both fruit. Now, If you would've said apples and bowling balls...
You're right. But, you can jump in your Semi-Wayback Machine and go back and correct inadvertant rule set-asides that lead to erroneously counting a score, within a semi-wayback time period.

I have an advantage in the fact that I'll see Mary Struckhoff later this week. If I get a chance, I'll see if she knows the difference between apples and bowling balls.

Yeah yeah, I know, you always call everything correctly. But that aint the question. I suppose you can't bring yourself to answer it. Well, according to the rules, yes, it's still a violation even though someone (not you of course) doesn't blow the whistle. The only thing the whistle does is allow the penalty to be enforced. The violation still occurs. And you know what we call it if we ignore a chance to fix it and apply the penalty but we don't? We call that a huge **** up.
Well that's good for you, most of us would just love to figure out a way to get fed 2.10 and ncaa 2.11 out of our lives.

As for going back into time....if you blow the whistle in my shot clock sitch you have done exactly that.

Of course you're bright enough to not directly answer my question on that play...that's OK. I think we both know the answer.

Basketball Rules Fundamentals #16 says....
 

The official's whistle seldom causes the ball to become dead. (it is already dead) We understand that this means it is dead when the foul/violation occurs. I believe this is the basic concept that some have referred to here.

BUT, a violation that is not called is not a violation. There are countless infractions in every game that are not called. The statement above, as I see it, is needed so that the speed of the whistle is not an issue. Picture the original situation as a last second heave from 60 feet. The ball is about to go over the top of the board, but instead hits this wire and travels straight down through the net at high speed, before the ref has time to blow the whistle. But the ref did see the violation, so he can still blow the whistle as the ball is bouncing on the floor and wave off the basket. True, the whistle does not cause the ball to be dead in this case, the violation does. But, without a whistle, we have no violation.

Yup....and how about the violations during a game that are <b>deliberately</b> not called? Three seconds? Ten seconds for a FT shooter? The officials that think that a palm in the back-court with no pressure shouldn't be called? Little shuffles at the end of blow-outs?

If a coach questions any of those, are you prepared to go back and call them too? You <b>do</b> know that they also actually were violations, remember, same as a ball hitting a wire.

Any set of rules or policies are written with some underlying assumptions. (Otherwise, the rulebook would be as thick as the Bible). One of them is that the Officials working a contest are knowledgeable regarding the rules, procedures and mechanics. Hence the verbiage on some of the rules. Hence, no rule or even Case Study to cover this scenario. But I agree that the error made was not calling the violation. It was not the awarding of the basket. Because the "decision" not not kill the play was made by T, the ball remained live. A live ball went through the basket. I see no way to take the points away.

After the game, I would make it a point to discuss the call with T. But I would also let the assignor know what happened. I would rather he heard it from me than from the coach.

Apples and what are you talking about. This whole thread was (at least in the beginning) about a rule being missinterpreted and resulting in points being scored. It was never about the officials missing the call they chose not to based on the missinterpretation. The Coaches TO in Bobs post was called immediately to have the officials discuss the situation. Correctable based on Fed 2-10 and NCAA 2-11.

Dan I apologize for not answering your question. What was your question again? :) I think I put enough smiley faces in my response to you to indicate I was half joking about it and there is no way I will ever say I don't make mistakes. If I know there is a shot clock violation I blow the whistle. I don't know what you want me to say to answer your question. If there is a shot clock violation and we play on - for some reason - the coach's timeout does not make this huge difference that many are making it out to be. This whole conversation opens the door for a coach to call a timeout and question every judgement call.

No it doesn't

You know as well as I do we have ways with dealing with coaches who do this.

Anyway, I'm glad you agree that you'll fix it after the fact if a rule is set aside inadvertently and a goal is scored in the shot clock case.

I just don't see how *that* case is any different from Bob's case, that's all. You and some others seem to be saying you won't do it simply because the coach brought it up. Doesn't seem right to me.

Anyway interesting discussion, we're still friends. :)

Can you provide a rules reference?

You obviously don't understand the point that I was trying to make.

That's unfortunate imo.