Tricky Error

[Adam]

Technical foul on A1 for not giving a dead ball directly to the official. No 2nd free throw for A1. B gets two shots (maybe four, that depends) and the ball.

Seriously, the official announced two shots, therefore this ball was not live when the shooter caught it. Since the ball was not live, this basket does not count, and go to the arrow.

[CLH]

I had this exact situation happen to me my third season. I was the lead, my partner (a 20 year veteran) didn't have a clue what to do. Luckily, me being the know it all kid, knew exactly what to do. I got it right! I won't lie thought, it was mostly luck that day.

CLH

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Technical foul on A1 for not giving a dead ball directly to the official. No 2nd free throw for A1. B gets two shots (maybe four, that depends) and the ball.

Seriously, the official announced two shots, therefore this ball was not live when the shooter caught it. Since the ball was not live, this basket does not count, and go to the arrow.

Seriously, I do not agree with that. (I'm assuming that by "the shooter" you mean the player who rebounded the missed FT and subsequently made a try for goal.)

The ball was live during the FT and remains live after it because no FT is to follow, despite what the official stated, unless an official sounds the whistle. Only a whistle sounding would make this ball dead.

Notice that the casebook play says that the whistle should be sounded immediately. The problem is what if it isn't?

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Seriously, I do not agree with that. (I'm assuming that by "the shooter" you mean the player who rebounded the missed FT and subsequently made a try for goal.)

The ball was live during the FT and remains live after it because no FT is to follow, despite what the official stated, unless an official sounds the whistle. Only a whistle sounding would make this ball dead.

Notice that the casebook play says that the whistle should be sounded immediately. The problem is what if it isn't?

Then 1 of 2 things will happen:

1. Coach B ( the other guy) will jump up and protest that the bonehead at L said 2 shots instead of 1&1. Then you confer and agree that coach B did get screwed, wipe off the basket and give the ball to the team with the arrow.
Rule? Two dot three, out favorite. L buys post game food & drinks.

2. No one will complain and the game will continue. At the next opportunity ask the L WTF just happened. L only buys first round.

[tjones1]

Seems like this situation has been coming up a lot around here lately. It's good to pre-game this and that you confirm how many shots are being shot. Slow down, no need to rush into an error.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by tjones1

Seems like this situation has been coming up a lot around here lately. It's good to pre-game this and that you confirm how many shots are being shot. Slow down, no need to rush into an error.

Only because it happened in the 4A boys State Championship game in Idaho!

[Zoochy]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Only because it happened in the 4A boys State Championship game in Idaho!

It also happened in the 2007 Conference USA tournament in Memphis. Quarter final game. Tulane vs Tulsa.
6 of us from St Louis were at the game. Since I am a basketball referee, I had to explain the ruling to my friends and the people surrounding me. We were sitting about 6 rows behind the official scorer. The officials were not happy with the scorekeeper. They got it right. I believe this happened with 13 seconds left in the game.

[jmaellis]

Originally Posted by Zoochy

It also happened in the 2007 Conference USA tournament in Memphis. Quarter final game. Tulane vs Tulsa.
6 of us from St Louis were at the game. Since I am a basketball referee, I had to explain the ruling to my friends and the people surrounding me. We were sitting about 6 rows behind the official scorer. The officials were not happy with the scorekeeper. They got it right. I believe this happened with 13 seconds left in the game.

If it was the same situation being discussed in this thread, why were the officials not happy with the scorekeeper?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Seriously, I do not agree with that. (I'm assuming that by "the shooter" you mean the player who rebounded the missed FT and subsequently made a try for goal.)

The ball was live during the FT and remains live after it because no FT is to follow, despite what the official stated, unless an official sounds the whistle. Only a whistle sounding would make this ball dead.

Notice that the casebook play says that the whistle should be sounded immediately. The problem is what if it isn't?

The administering official stated "two." This means he has granted an unwarranted free throw, even though it won't be shot until after this first shot. This is a correctable error.
Also, since he has granted the following shot (however erroneously), the ball becomes dead as soon as the shot has missed.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

The administering official stated "two." This means he has granted an unwarranted free throw, even though it won't be shot until after this first shot. This is a correctable error.
Also, since he has granted the following shot (however erroneously), the ball becomes dead as soon as the shot has missed.

I don't agree with that.

Could you please show me in the book where this verbal statement amounts to awarding an unmerited FT?

The truth is that an unmerited FT isn't awarded until it physically takes place.

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I don't agree with that.

Could you please show me in the book where this verbal statement amounts to awarding an unmerited FT?

The truth is that an unmerited FT isn't awarded until it physically takes place.

My monkey's lost his internet access and asked me to post this for him

Originally Posted by MonkeyRef

Good point.

Two dot three.

Play it as if the whistle had been blown prior to the basket.

[Nevadaref]

Your monkey should write the NFHS rules book. It appears that he could do a better job in certain areas than the current people have done.

This play should have a similar case book ruling to 10.1.8