I have to prewarn you that this is a long story.

A1 is fouled at the division line by B1. B1 then slams the ball down and says "bulls**t". I call the block which is B1's 4th foul and bonus shots for A. Also call the T which is B1's 5th foul. The table informs me of 5th foul so I take a few steps toward B1 and tell him he has 5 fouls, I then go over to Head Coach B and inform him of the disqualification and subsequent 30 seconds to replace him.

This is where it gets good... As I'm waiting for the 30 seconds or the replacement player, my partner has begun to administer the free throws for the one and one and the T!!! As I hear the "AWWW's" from the crowd I turn to see this bad thing happening. I immediately step in front of the shooter and quietly ask my inept or thoroughly stupid partner, what he was doing? He says he's administering the free throws. I ask him if he has another appointment to get too, because he should at the very least, have made eye contact with me before he administers the free throws, never mind the fact that the replacement for the disqualified player had not been replaced yet!

Now, here's where I need to know if I had the correct procedure. My partner said that A1 made the first of the one and one, missed the second and made the first of two for the T, before I stepped in. I said they don't count, we eliminate anything that happened during that time and begin with the one and one, then shoot the T. A1 misses front end of one and one and makes both for the T, then made throw in from division line. Did I procede correctly?

Sorry for the length of this thread. BTW my partner is still alive, although, the Gambino family is looking for him.:)

IMO the FT's happened during a dead ball period and you
are correct, wipe it all away & start again. This was
discussed on McGriff's, I believe.

Your partner did at least have the lane cleared right? I don't think I would go to this length to show my partner up, even though you may have rule support. I think I would just let him know very sternly not to shoot any more and that he was very wrong in doing so to begin with.

Sorry, but i have to disagree. This is not a correctable error. The three shots he took stand. When you get the sub in you shoot the 4th shot and then ball at the division line.

There is no correctable error in this sitch, what happened stands, and you can wait to shoot the lst o the shots.

BTW - How did they get off three shots b4 you noticed?

I guess oops is in order for eliminating the free throws and starting over. The lane was clear when I looked over. I was standing in front of the table waiting for a subsitution/replacement. There was alot of confusion and I figured my partner would wait for the proper procedure to unfold. Notice I didn't use the word "assume". Thanks for the input, just another reason why I like this forum so much.

I agree that this is not a correctable error. In technical terms we call this an "official screw-up"! :)

Don't make things difficult on yourself and make a bad situation worse. Get the sub in, shoot the last free throw and inbound the ball.

Then, after the game, discuss the situation with your partner.

I agree this is *not* a 2-10 correctable error, but that
does not mean the FT's should stand, by rule. IMO these
FT's are the same as shoting FT's during a time out.
During a TO the ball is dead for 60/75/30 seconds until the
time it is made available. During the 30 second period to
replace a disqualified player the ball remains dead. Among
the things you can't do during a dead ball is score points.

Having said all that, I agree that it might be appropriate
to just let the FT's stand in this case. Maybe.

they shot 3 free throws without you noticing? If you have a T on a player or coach you should immediately get together with your partner and discuss the procedure. Yes, your partner goofed but it sounds like you should have conferred with him before it got to the point that it did.

Let the FT's stand, there was nothing "unfair" about proceeding, in this case it is administrative error, no disadvantage.

I'm wondering why DR considers this a dead ball? An official placed the ball at the disposal of a free throw player. It doesn't take two officials to make a ball live, just one, right or wrong. That ball is live...erroneous or not. I agree the FT's stand. I don't see how this falls under any of the correctable errors. Just looks bad.

Also, I may be sticking my neck out here because I don't have my book handy but isn't the "30 seconds for a replacement" only a time limit set on the coach? He may elect to take all or some of that time but play resumes as soon as the substitute is waved in. The other team doesn't get any remaining time...

Did the coach go balistic?

Becasue it is not a 2-10 error is exactly why you leave the points up. These were not improperly <b> awarded </b> free throws, just imporperly administered timing wise. There is nothing in the rules or case book to support taking points off the board, unless they were improperly awarded.

If you are going to attempt to be a by-the-book official then, <I>technically</I>, you are also going to have to call a T on the other team for not having enough players on the court, right?

Of course not. That's stupid.

You have to use common sense. Your partner hands the ball to the free thrower, then the free throw(s) need to count.

I agree with the others that this is not a correctable error as defined in 2-10. It is also <I>not</I> the same as shooting during a time-out, since the official handed the ball to the shooter, making the ball live.

One thing I would have done differently would have been to inform the coach that his player was disqualified before informing the player. Then if they player does something ridiculous he'd be considered bench personnel.

Ren

No -- that's only if they violate the "resumption of play" procedure (not all returning at the same time).

In this instance, the team is "allowed" to play with four until they can get the next player legally on the court.

Compare 10.1.9 and 10.3.4C

Good point Bob.

Of course, I was not really being serious, but you are right that technically it would <I>not</I> be a technical foul.

Sometimes I think that we create problems for ourselves when we are holding the rule book 6 inches from our face instead of stepping back to get the big picture of the situation.

Bob J has already shown where your argument is wrong.
And this is certainly the first time *I've* ever been
accused of being a by-the-book-official. But now you've
done it, you made me look up the damn rules. So here goes:

NF 3.1.1 tells us that a team MUST have 5 players
participating. As soon as you tell the coach his player has
5 fouls he's disqualified (4-14-2), leaving only 4. Which
means we must wait for the 5th player to come in. And
the coach has 30 seconds to name that player. Dead ball.
Can't score during a dead ball, I don't care what 2-10
says, it's as good as a time out. But there's even more
direct guidance under NCAA 4-17-5:

"A disqualified player shall be replaced within a
30 second time limit. A signal shall be sounded
both 15 seconds before the expiration of this
time limit and at the end of the time limit,
with the latter signal indicating that play shall
resume."

Sorry folks, you can't score points before the game has
resumed. Like it or not, it's there in black & white.

It's a mess, but one of your own making and under the rules you have to reshoot the FTs, IMO. But of course you might
consider just leaving things as they stand ;)

I know that I said I was going to bed, but I just could not resist this thread.

Yes, the official that started shooting free throws was a real doofus, but having said that, the offended player and team shot the free throws it and he/she were entitled to shoot. This is not a correctable error, just poor game management. While the rules references that Dan_ref gave us pertain to a disqualified player and the procedure to replace the disqualified player they do not trump the correctable error rule.

The lead official put the player on the free throw line and had him/her shoot the free throws. The officials cannot use the correctable error rule. There is no way I would want to tell the offended coach I am going to take points off the board and make his team shoot the free throws again. There is nothing in the rules book that can defend the reshooting the free throws.

Now can I go to bed. Good night everyone.

Just let the free throws stand and move on. After the game, pretend your a "fan" and follow your partner to his car and kick his ***. :) Just kidding.

Z

Short and to the point. I like it and the point that you made.

Good night Mark. But it's just your opinion against mine,
and I say that no points can be scored during a dead ball.
Period. Pleasant dreams.

<b><quote>

Good night Mark. But it's just your opinion against mine,
and I say that no points can be scored during a dead ball.
Period. Pleasant dreams. [/B][/QUOTE]

Let's change this. Kid fouls out, his sub comes to the bench, you beckon him on, and then go to your position. Both you and your partner assume he came on the floor, but behind your back he went back over to his coach so that he could get some last minute instruction. Your partner resumes play with a throw in and a quick bucket is scored with B only havig four player on the floor, do you wipe that bucket?

Let's change this. Kid fouls out, his sub comes to the bench, you beckon him on, and then go to your position. Both you and your partner assume he came on the floor, but behind your back he went back over to his coach so that he could get some last minute instruction. Your partner resumes play with a throw in and a quick bucket is scored with B only havig four player on the floor, do you wipe that bucket? [/B][/QUOTE]

Brian, neither one of us is going to let the game resume
until the kid is beckoned in, on the floor and the table
knows who he's coming in for. If he makes a u turn and
goes back to the coach I'm gonna keep my arm up, so
would you. If he comes on the floor and then makes a
u turn he's in the game, let's play. But let's say we're working this game together, I beckon in B6 but he goes back
and sits on the bench without me seeing it. Now we have a
completely different animal, after the FT I'm going to ask
the coach what's up, and what I do next depends on his
answer. But you and I both know the FT will stand.

Dan_Ref, I no longer have the memo with me, however just resently NCAA Women's addressed this issue and they said this is not correctable. My understanding is this happened in a Men's game and the officials took points off the board. I also understood the officials got a suspention for not knowing the rules. You can verify this by emailing Barb. Jacobs.

Thank you Bart. I had forgotten about that memo, and was defending my position on the rules alone, which was a pretty good defense of my position in the first place.

Thanks Bart, this is a lot more informative than "because
I said so". I looked on the NCAA officiating info site,
http://www.ncaa.org/champadmin/baske...ing_bulletins/
but I couldn't find it. Got something more solid than this?
(I guess I could just email them myself...)

I did find something interesting. The women's mechanic for
a "blarge" is NOT a double foul, as in men's & NFHS.
Officials have got to agree on either block or charge. I
like that.

Dan_ref, I will ask some of my partners if they still have the info or the sorce. We get emails, memos in the mail, bulletins, and we also check a wbktref site. Anyway, i will ask around.

Well, I think quite a few here have sided with Mark on this one (including myself).

And, the conflict isn't between your opinions, it is which rule takes precedence (NF):

1. 30 seconds to replace, clearly meant to be a TO period.

2. Ball put at player's disposal, that is how a ball becomes live, and play resumes.

I side with 2.

I agree it's about precedence, and I agree I'm the only
one who sides with your number 1, which keeps me posting
on the topic! If someone would just say I'm right I would
stop! :) Let's take this from a huge screwup to a
ridiculous extreme. 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?

The thirty seconds to replace a disqualified or injured player is not a timeout. There are only two types of timeouts and they are both team timeouts (not withstanding electronic broadcast timeouts for NCAA games): one is long in duration and one is short in duration. The thirty second timeout to replace a disqualified or injured player does not fall into the team timeout category. And the situation is not a correctable error situation either because the player and team shoot the free throws to which he/she and it was entitled.

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]

Hmmm, maybeeee...

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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!

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!" :)

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.

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.

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?

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?

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!

Oops I take back what i said. :)

Yes.

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

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?

Jeez, I hope not! That would suck all the fun right out of the board. ;) Party-pooper!! Does that count as name-calling? :p

Chuck

I am still confused. How does the Lead's screw-up invalidate the free throws that were shot? I have yet to see any rules reference that would allow us to invoke the correctable error rule. A1 and Team A got to shoot free throws that they were entitled.

I agree Mark -- this is <B>NOT</B> a correctable error.

It is what we call, in technical terms, an official screw-up.

And it is not correctable.

Maybe a little.

Of course, the "force-out" topic erased any of that . . .