Correct Procedure?

[Slider]

Originally posted by Dan_ref
B1 fouls A1 on a shot, but B calls TO
before A1 can take his first FT. At the first horn
A1 goes to the line and makes a FT, B is still in their
huddle. Under your theory the ball has been made live and
the FT counts, in fact if the FT misses A1 shoots 2 again,
because none of team B occupied the lowests lane position.
See where I'm going? This is all kinda silly & fun but
it does point out that there are huge holes in the rules,
there's nothing more basic than 2-10 and live ball/dead
ball, is there?[/B]

I agree that there is nothing more basic than Live Ball/ Dead Ball. Correctable errors (2-10) seem to be shoe-horned in, and these are the only errors which allow errors by floor officials to be corrected.

In the case of B huddling by the bench; A is allowed one miss, and then the T comes out. Also, note that the official is aware of the huddling, and the rules tell him what to do.

In the situation of the original post, the administering official has no idea that something is amiss. The rules allow us to correct others' errors (sometimes), but they don't allow us to correct our own errors (except in the correctable errors of 2-10-1).



[Edited by Slider on Feb 13th, 2002 at 02:32 PM]

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by Slider


...Correctable errors (2-10) seem to be shoe-horned in, and these are the only errors which allow errors by floor officials to be corrected.

Hmmm, maybeeee...

In the case of B huddling by the bench; A is allowed one miss, and then the T comes out. Also, note that the official is aware of the huddling, and the rules tell him what to do.

Reread my example. A comes out at the first horn, before
the TO is over, and the official places te ball at his
disposal. This is not the resuming play case. It's the
original case (5 pages ago!) taken to it's extreme.

In the situation of the original post, the administering official has no idea that something is amiss. The rules allow us to correct others' errors (sometimes), but they don't allow us to correct our own errors (except in the correctable errors of 2-10).

I might buy that...anyway, it's been fun!

[Bart Tyson]

Dan_ref, the example you give is not a fair example. I have never heard of this happening. The other cases have and do happen. Sooo, you cheat with your example.

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by Bart Tyson
Dan_ref, the example you give is not a fair example. I have never heard of this happening. The other cases have and do happen. Sooo, you cheat with your example.

LOL! "It does not compute! It does not compute!"

[Slider]

Originally posted by Dan_ref
Reread my example. A comes out at the first horn, before
the TO is over, and the official places te ball at his
disposal. This is not the resuming play case. It's the
original case (5 pages ago!) taken to it's extreme.

O.K., now I see what you were saying; but you are applying the resuming procedure and then saying it isn't a resuming situation.

And, it isn't a PROPER resuming situation; B has not had a proper amount of time to get to the lane positions.

I think the officials error trumps the resuming procedure. If A misses the first FT, then A just blew their one and only chance at that FT in my opinion.

[daves]

My vote is for letting the points stand and moving on. To me it is more in line with the spirit of the rules. Even though the administering official messed up by putting the ball at the shooter's disposal, it is not a correctable error. I also think that the other official messed up by trying to upstage his partner in front of everyone. It makes both officials look bad when this happens. This is something to take care of after the game.

[BktBallRef]

Let's change the play.

Ai is fouled by B1, who is DQ'ed for his 5th foul. A1 will will shoot 1&1. The T is at the table, hand in the air, waiting for the sub. The L administers the FT which is missed. B rebounds the ball when the T realizes that the L has just committed a cluster firetruck! Now, what do we do?

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by BktBallRef
Let's change the play.

Ai is fouled by B1, who is DQ'ed for his 5th foul. A1 will will shoot 1&1. The T is at the table, hand in the air, waiting for the sub. The L administers the FT which is missed. B rebounds the ball when the T realizes that the L has just committed a cluster firetruck! Now, what do we do?

If I had my way it's all wiped off and we resume play with
A1's 1&1 after B6 enters. If everyone else had their way
it's B's ball after we let B6 into the game.

Does the Russian judge get a vote?

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by Slider


O.K., now I see what you were saying; but you are applying the resuming procedure and then saying it isn't a resuming situation.

And, it isn't a PROPER resuming situation; B has not had a proper amount of time to get to the lane positions.

I think the officials error trumps the resuming procedure. If A misses the first FT, then A just blew their one and only chance at that FT in my opinion.

Well, it's not a resuming play sitch at all, it's a major
screw up by the lead who put the ball at the FT'ers
disposal (notice I did not say "put the ball in play" ).
But this is a minor point. Let's think about this. If A1's
attempt is a valid attempt (ie the ball was live) then why
hasn't B violated by not occupying the spaces underneath?
Does the L's screw-up invalidate the rules governing FT's?

[Bart Tyson]

OK, BktBallRef changes the play, now Dan_Ref changes BktBallRef's change by saying team B not in the blocks. Lets change it again and say Team B had six players on the court.

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by Bart Tyson
OK, BktBallRef changes the play, now Dan_Ref changes BktBallRef's change by saying team B not in the blocks. Lets change it again and say Team B had six players on the court.

Nope, not what happened at all. Reread my last 2 posts,
they are completely separate, the first is my response to
bktballref's change, the second is a followup to slider.
We got a lot of threads going on here!

[Bart Tyson]

Oops I take back what i said.

[Slider]

Originally posted by Dan_ref
Does the L's screw-up invalidate the rules governing FT's? [/B]

Yes.

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by Slider

Yes. [/B]

Although I find your style entertaining you would be
wrong. But I like that, it's your story and you're sticking
to it.

[rainmaker]

Wow, cool! Do you realize that we've gone three pages without ever calling anyone names, or taking anything personally; Also we've stayed on topic. Do you think we might all be growing up a little?