Erroneous info

[just another ref]

Why can't the guy who gave the bad info wave the basket off and say the ball was dead by rule 6-7-2-a?

[Indianaref]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Why can't the guy who gave the bad info wave the basket off and say the ball was dead by rule 6-7-2-a?

As Nevada said, the official(s) should have blown their whistle immediately. Rule 6-7-2a is not applicable. This was a 1 and 1. Free throw was not to be followed by another free throw (missed first free throw) or followed by a throw-in.
You can only wipe off the basket as in R 2-10-4 . . . If the error is a free throw by the wrong player or at the wrong basket, or the awarding of an unmerited free throw, the free throw and the activity during it, other than unsporting, flagrant, intentional or technical fouls, shall be canceled... in the appropriate time frame.
In Ch1 case the correct shooter was at the line.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Indianaref

As Nevada said, the official(s) should have blown their whistle immediately. Rule 6-7-2a is not applicable. This was a 1 and 1. Free throw was not to be followed by another free throw (missed first free throw) or followed by a throw-in.

If the administering official announces 2 shots, then, even if it's wrong, the free throw is to be followed by another free throw. Therefore, when it is apparent that the first free throw is no good, the ball is dead.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by just another ref

If the administering official announces 2 shots, then, even if it's wrong, the free throw is to be followed by another free throw. Therefore, when it is apparent that the first free throw is no good, the ball is dead.

Sorry, but that is simply not true.

If a player is fouled while attempting an unsuccessful lay-up, do think that he is entitled to three FTs if the administering official erroneously announces, "Three shots"?

The number of FTs does not change based upon what an official says, they are properly determined by game action.

[Adam]

The correctable error here would be awarding the 2nd shot. Yes, bad info can cause problems, and the whistle should have blown. But there's no correctable error here to allow you to discount the shot.
And even if there was a "correctable error," you still can't discount any activity that occurred prior to discovery.

[just another ref]

I see the error as awarding 2 shots instead of 1 & 1. Both shots were awarded by the announcement, even though the second one is yet to be shot.
You mean to tell me that if the lead official steps in and starts to pick up the ball after the first shot and A1 takes it out of his hand and scores, you would count the basket since there was no whistle?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by just another ref

I see the error as awarding 2 shots instead of 1 & 1. Both shots were awarded by the announcement, even though the second one is yet to be shot.
You mean to tell me that if the lead official steps in and starts to pick up the ball after the first shot and A1 takes it out of his hand and scores, you would count the basket since there was no whistle?

A shot is not awarded until it is taken. Still I am partial to the philosophy that the ball is dead on the miss. The players are not responsible for bookkeeping and knowing whether it should be 1+1 or 2. They go by what the ref/table says. If the ref says 2 and most/all players play as it were two, the ball is dead. The player who shot the ball shot a dead ball.... no basket.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

A shot is not awarded until it is taken. Still I am partial to the philosophy that the ball is dead on the miss. The players are not responsible for bookkeeping and knowing whether it should be 1+1 or 2. They go by what the ref/table says. If the ref says 2 and most/all players play as it were two, the ball is dead. The player who shot the ball shot a dead ball.... no basket.

I agree with you, and wish the NFHS would issue a case play to this affect. As it stands, the rules don't support that action, though.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

........there's no correctable error here to allow you to discount the shot.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Camron Rust
A shot is not awarded until it is taken. Still I am partial to the philosophy that the ball is dead on the miss. The players are not responsible for bookkeeping and knowing whether it should be 1+1 or 2. They go by what the ref/table says. If the ref says 2 and most/all players play as it were two, the ball is dead. The player who shot the ball shot a dead ball.... no basket.

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I agree with you, and wish the NFHS would issue a case play to this affect. As it stands, the rules don't support that action, though.

So, did you wave off the basket or not?

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by just another ref

I see the error as awarding 2 shots instead of 1 & 1. Both shots were awarded by the announcement, even though the second one is yet to be shot.
You mean to tell me that if the lead official steps in and starts to pick up the ball after the first shot and A1 takes it out of his hand and scores, you would count the basket since there was no whistle?

This comes down to what the words mean in NFHS basketball jargon.

In NFHS terms "awarding" a FT means actually allowing the player to attempt it. The verbal statement of how many FTs will be shot does not constitute "awarding" the FT.

Unless the official was touching OOB when he touched the ball, the ball contacting the official is no reason to declare it dead.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

In NFHS terms "awarding" a FT means actually allowing the player to attempt it. The verbal statement of how many FTs will be shot does not constitute "awarding" the FT.

No, but the verbal statement does mean that "another free throw is to follow"
which means the ball is dead after the miss.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by just another ref

No, but the verbal statement does mean that "another free throw is to follow"
which means the ball is dead after the miss.

Nope, terminology again.
"Another free throw is to follow" which I have to presume is language that you are paraphrasing from 6-7-2, means that due to the game action another FT attempt actually will occur after the current one is completed. It does not mean that an official mistakenly stated such.

You really need to stop putting your own personal meaning into these phrases and go with what the NFHS intends them to mean. You can deduce that from the play rulings and interpretations that the NFHS has issued in the past. Doing so will greatly help both your understanding and adminstration of the game.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by just another ref

No, but the verbal statement does mean that "another free throw is to follow"
which means the ball is dead after the miss.

Just because an official says something, doesn't make it so.

Here's a counterexample to your statement: An official tells a coach that he has one time-out remaining, but the official is mistaken and that team really doesn't have any left. When the coach requests and is granted a time-out, the NFHS rules dictate that this action be penalized with a technical foul.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Nope, terminology again.
"Another free throw is to follow" which I have to presume is language that you are paraphrasing from 6-7-2, means that due to the game action another FT attempt actually will occur after the current one is completed. It does not mean that an official mistakenly stated such.

You really need to stop putting your own personal meaning into these phrases and go with what the NFHS intends them to mean. You can deduce that from the play rulings and interpretations that the NFHS has issued in the past. Doing so will greatly help both your understanding and adminstration of the game.

So the NFHS intends for team A to get a free basket because of the official's mistake? I think your are putting too much emphasis on the phrase "whistled dead immediately."

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Nope, terminology again.
"Another free throw is to follow" which I have to presume is language that you are paraphrasing from 6-7-2, means that due to the game action another FT attempt actually will occur after the current one is completed. It does not mean that an official mistakenly stated such.

You really need to stop putting your own personal meaning into these phrases and go with what the NFHS intends them to mean. You can deduce that from the play rulings and interpretations that the NFHS has issued in the past. Doing so will greatly help both your understanding and adminstration of the game.

If we go the route you suggest, every player should try to rebound every FT and shoot it in hopes of getting a free shot...even if everyone says it should be two...just in case an error is found.

The NFHS does state that they do not intend one team to get an advantage not intended by the rules.