Referee Magazine wrong - again!

[Mark Padgett]

You would think that with all the time they have to prepare for each issue, they at least would get their rule interpretations right. Not so. In the new January issue on page N14 of the insert that only goes to NASO members, Hank Nichols blows it.

The question asked about a case in which A1 inbounds by rolling the ball (this part was put in to establish there was no team control for the next part). While the ball is rolling, coach B requests and is incorrectly granted a timeout. Nichols correctly states that under NF rules, the timeout goes on as if it was legal, but also states that team A gets the ball back to inbound. The original inbound was not designated as an AP inbound. He cites case 5.8.3E to substantiate his interpretation. That case does support the timeout being utilized as if it was legal, but says nothing about giving the ball back to team A for the inbound instead of going to the AP arrow.

NF rule 6.3.3.e says AP shall be used in all situations where "The ball becomes dead when neither team is in control and no goal or infraction or end of a quarter or extra period is involved."

In this case, there was no team control, the ball became dead on the referee's whistle and none of the other situations occurred.

I was always taught that anytime there was an inadvertant whistle (which I would classify as what happened here) and there is no team control, you go to the AP arrow.

Also, on another case, the magazine (no personal interpretation listed) combines two of the four elements needed for an over and back into "team control in the frontcourt." I guess they mean that as being in team control when the ball attains frontcourt status, but I think it is better expressed as two separate elements - 1) team control and 2) the ball has achieved frontcourt status.

Comments?

[Mark Dexter]

By rule, you are correct - you would go to the AP arrow in a situation like this.

However, I would have an awfly hard time explaining to A's coach that B would be getting the timeout and the ball, especially if it were due to my stupidity. Maybe there will be some new ruling on this next year, maybe not.

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by Mark Padgett
I was always taught that anytime there was an inadvertant whistle (which I would classify as what happened here) and there is no team control, you go to the AP arrow.

I'd use the case that says "the referee can correct giving the ball to the wrong team on a throw in until the throw-in has ended" as support for giving the ball back to the inbounding team.

Also, on another case, the magazine (no personal interpretation listed) combines two of the four elements needed for an over and back into "team control in the frontcourt." I guess they mean that as being in team control when the ball attains frontcourt status, but I think it is better expressed as two separate elements - 1) team control and 2) the ball has achieved frontcourt status.

Comments?

Agreed that the terms are the same, but it's easier for most to understand when they're broken into two.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

And the "Three Marks" have a split decision. But I have to agree with what Mark Dexter has to say on this play. The corresponding NCAA rules reference to NFHS R6-S3-A3e, is R6-S3-A1e. I am speculating (and I mean just speculating), but I think that Hank based his NCAA interpretation on NFHS Casebook Play 5.8.3E. I will go on record by saying that NFHS & NCAA R2-S3 does not apply.

Whether the game is played under NFHS or NCAA rules, I would think that the officials would be hard pressed to give the ball to Team B under alternating possession rules. I cannot speak for the either rules committee but I would hope that Hank's interpretation would be considered the correct one and this problem would be addressed by next year by both committees.

[Mark Padgett]

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
And the "Three Marks" have a split decision. But I have to agree with what Mark Dexter has to say on this play. The corresponding NCAA rules reference to NFHS R6-S3-A3e, is R6-S3-A1e. I am speculating (and I mean just speculating), but I think that Hank based his NCAA interpretation on NFHS Casebook Play 5.8.3E. I will go on record by saying that NFHS & NCAA R2-S3 does not apply.

Whether the game is played under NFHS or NCAA rules, I would think that the officials would be hard pressed to give the ball to Team B under alternating possession rules. I cannot speak for the either rules committee but I would hope that Hank's interpretation would be considered the correct one and this problem would be addressed by next year by both committees.

Mark - I don't think that under NF rules the officials would be "hard pressed" to go the AP arrow, since that is what the rules demand. If you contend that Hank based his interpretation on the NF case 5.8.3e, that case does not mention anything at all about who gets possession if the incorrect timeout was granted during a period of no team control. You must then go to the rule, which I quoted above, that plainly and clearly supports going to the AP.

Bob - you said, I'd use the case that says "the referee can correct giving the ball to the wrong team on a throw in until the throw-in has ended" as support for giving the ball back to the inbounding team.

Which case number is that, please? Thanks.

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by Mark Padgett
Bob - you said, I'd use the case that says "the referee can correct giving the ball to the wrong team on a throw in until the throw-in has ended" as support for giving the ball back to the inbounding team.

Which case number is that, please? Thanks.

6.3.1D (last year's reference) -- note that it says "Not after the ball touches an inbounds player." -- implying that before the ball touches an inbounds player, the potential mistake can be rectified (trying to avoid using the words "error" and "correctable" since this isn't part of 2-10).

[Mark Padgett]

Originally posted by bob jenkins

6.3.1D (last year's reference) -- note that it says "Not after the ball touches an inbounds player." -- implying that before the ball touches an inbounds player, the potential mistake can be rectified (trying to avoid using the words "error" and "correctable" since this isn't part of 2-10).

Bob - I see your point, but I think that's a real stretch to use that case. I do admit it implies that you could give the ball back to a team before the ball is touched by anyone on the court in certain circumstances, but the case refers to giving an AP throwin to the wrong team and then trying to correct it quickly and I'm not sure you should use that case when it is clear under the rule what you should do in the case denoted in this thread.

Think of it this way. What if, during play, A1 takes a shot. The ball hits the backboard and, during the long rebound, an official blows his whistle because he thinks team B has too many men on the court when they really don't (yeah - I know, that's incredibly unlikely, but bear with me). You now have an inadvertant whistle during a time of no team control. Would you give the ball to team A just because they were the last team to have touched it? Of course not. You would go to the AP.

I think that's a closer analogy to the case in this thread than the one you cite because if the ball is rolling on the floor, it's anyone's ball, and the team that rolled it in has no more right to it than the other team at that point, unlike the "right" you would have if it was your AP throwin and the official gave it to the other team instead.

I do think it's unfortunate that NF rules sometimes allow a team to get an advantage due to an official's mistake, but until they make a blanket rule to let us override whenever that happens due to trying to apply the equity principle, that's the way it goes.

[Jurassic Referee]

Mark P.,if there was no B player near the ball when the whistle was blown,I'd hang my hat on anything to give the ball back to A.I like Bob Jenkin's reference-vague enough so that it's argueable.That's good enough for me.Remember-blanket rules are made to be broken!:

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Mark Padgett:

I agree with you regarding the rules reference and my first inclination would be to follow the rule (there are many coaches and officials out there that will tell you that I am a stickler for the rules). But I think that you and I would agree, that to give the ball to Team B via the AP Arrow is unfair and I hope that the intent of the rules in this case is to be fair. I think that this is a rare situation that the NFHS and NCAA Rules Committees should address.

We all know that sometimes the rules require something that seems unfair to one team. One of the fundamentals of any set of rules for a game is that a team should not gain advantage it is not entitled too. I cannot speak for the rules committees but I still think that they would be hard pressed to say that Team B should get the ball because of an inadvertent whistle under this unique situation.

[crew]

mark d.,
are you saying you have a choice in the matter?

[Mark Padgett]

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
Mark Padgett:

I agree with you regarding the rules reference and my first inclination would be to follow the rule (there are many coaches and officials out there that will tell you that I am a stickler for the rules). But I think that you and I would agree, that to give the ball to Team B via the AP Arrow is unfair and I hope that the intent of the rules in this case is to be fair. I think that this is a rare situation that the NFHS and NCAA Rules Committees should address.

We all know that sometimes the rules require something that seems unfair to one team. One of the fundamentals of any set of rules for a game is that a team should not gain advantage it is not entitled too. I cannot speak for the rules committees but I still think that they would be hard pressed to say that Team B should get the ball because of an inadvertent whistle under this unique situation.

I agree that teams should not gain an advantage when they are not entitled to, and that there should be some kind of relief in the rules to prevent that. In my opinion in the stated case, team B is also getting some advantage to which they are not entitled by getting a timeout when they are not entitled to get one, due to an official's error. Although, this really isn't quite as big a deal as getting a possession, perhaps.

The real bad aspect of the way the actual rule is written is this: what if, instead of the timeout being called after A1 rolled the ball onto the court, he hadn't yet inbounded? Technically, there is no team control at this point and by rule, you would go to the arrow coming out of the timeout. This would really be contrary to the spirit of equity.

As to those of you who said the ruling should depend on whether or not a member of team B was "near" the rolling ball when the whistle was blown, I think that makes no sense at all. What if A2 and B1 were equidistant from the ball? Would that give more credence to a jump? That's just nonsense, IMHO.

Maybe one step in the right direction would be for the rule to state that if there is an inadvertant whistle (and I would include this case as one), you go back and pick up the game as it was at the time of the whistle. I know the rule implies that, but because of the definition of team control, it doesn't always happen. If the rule was changed, in the case of A1 not having yet inbounded, they would get the ball back at that point. I must admit, however, that you probably couldn't go back and roll the ball on the floor and start play with it rolling.

And, while we're at it, let me get on my perpetual soapbox and state my favorite rule change. Let's take the same attitude on technical fouls. In the NBA, they look at a technical as something that happens "outside the normal play of the game" (my quotes, not their's). So, they "freeze" the game, take care of the technical and then pick the game up where it left off (of course, we might have to change the "team control" requirements as I suggest above). This seems eminently fair to me. In fact, adding possession to the technical foul penalty penalizes a team more if they were on offense when they committed a technical than if they were on defense. This makes no sense. It assumes there is more of an expectation of sportsmanship from a team when they have the ball, so therefore the penalty is more severe if they do. I really don't care that the penalty is two free throws, not one like in the NBA (in fact, I support two), but I do think we should take the "and possession" aspect out.

I heard at a clinic once that the NF has the "and possession" part in there because they think we are too dumb to be able to figure out what should happen to the ball otherwise. I don't doubt that's the reason. I have heard many times that one of the main reasons we have the AP arrow in the first place is that the NF doesn't think we are capable of making good tosses consistently. Of course, the other reason is that if we jumped each time there was a tie-up, some games would take days.

[Jurassic Referee]

Mark,the technical foul rule was changed to 2 shots and possession with the aim of cutting down the incidence of acts of unsportsmanlike conduct by making the penalty harsher.It was supposed to make people think a little bit more before they risked getting one.The NBA players and coaches could care less about unsportsmanlike conduct.That's also why they changed the rules to give the howler monkies and players only 2 direct T's before you eject them.Used to be no limit except the official's patience.:
On the other play,you're probably 100% right by the rulebook,but I don't want you to be right."Not fair"as my 3 year old grand-daughter says,whenever she doesn't get her own way!:

[Mark Padgett]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
Mark,the technical foul rule was changed to 2 shots and possession with the aim of cutting down the incidence of acts of unsportsmanlike conduct by making the penalty harsher.It was supposed to make people think a little bit more before they risked getting one.The NBA players and coaches could care less about unsportsmanlike conduct.That's also why they changed the rules to give the howler monkies and players only 2 direct T's before you eject them.Used to be no limit except the official's patience.:

Hey Raptor-breath With all due respect (seriously), I think you may have missed my point on the possession aspect. If you have the ball and have a T called on you, you give up two shots and possession. If you are on defense and have a T called on you, all you give up are the two shots, because you didn't have possession in the first place. All I am saying is that this isn't equitable. I'd just as soon take away the possession provision and give three shots. I have no problem with the penalty for a T being somewhat punitive, or even draconian. I'm just saying it should be the same penalty whether a team is on offense or defense.

Of course, there is another inequity similar to this under NF rules - no shots on a player control foul.....but that's another argument for another day.

[Jurassic Referee]

Mark,you're right,and you're right!
1)I did miss your point badly.
2)The point you are making is logical,as soon as "old sh*t for brains"(me) figured it out.The NBA way does seem like a better way to handle it.
I now stand before you in abject humility and chagrin!:

Raptor Breath? OOOOOOOh!