Erroneous info

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

Camron,
You've already stated that you know what the NFHS ruling is on such a situation, but you wish that they would alter it. While the current ruling does have some downside, I believe that neither of us has any trouble understanding it and properly enforcing it. Let's not twist the topic into the realm of the theoretical and the hypothetical. Let's focus on how to correctly handle it under the current rule.
Talking about anything else in this thread could well serve to further confuse officials such as JAR.

BTW I would argue that an unsporting technical foul would be appropriate for a player who did as you suggest. That action is clearly not within the spirit of fair play.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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

True, but if an official says two shots, we shoot two shots, unless an official says otherwise afterward.

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by just another ref

True, but if an official says two shots, we shoot two shots, unless an official says otherwise afterward.

Unless the players know better and rebound the miss from the front end of the 1 and 1. Then we just play on.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

Unless the players know better and rebound the miss from the front end of the 1 and 1. Then we just play on.

Right and that happens to be part c of the case book play.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

Unless the players know better and rebound the miss from the front end of the 1 and 1. Then we just play on.

Players yes.....one player no

[just another ref]

"..........it is important to know the intent and purpose of a rule so that it may be intelligently applied in each play situation. A player or team should not be permitted an advantage which is not intended by a rule."


Is a player scoring a basket while his opponents stand and watch because of bad information given by an official an advantage? Surely we all agree that it is.

Is there any rule which intends for this to happen? Surely we all agree that there is not.


Sometimes mistakes happen which are compounded by quirks in the wording of the rules. These can result in things which do not seem fair and there may be no way out. In this case there is an easy, obvious way out:

The ball was dead after the miss.

The end

[Nevadaref]

Once again you seem to have a misunderstanding of something that the NFHS has written. The intent and purpose passage is directed at a player or team purposely trying to take advantage of a written rule in some way that it is not intended to be applied. It has nothing to do with a team benefitting when an official misses a call or misapplies a rule. You seem to have confused the two.

In this case did the player who scored the goal break any rule to gain this advantage? Nope, an official made a mistake.

If an official hands the ball to the wrong team for a throw-in and the throw-in is completed before anyone realizes that something has been administered incorrectly, what is the proper course of action?
Should the official stop play, erase the throw-in and award the ball to the proper team? No, the NFHS says that it is too late to correct the mistake.

What if the team quickly scores a goal due to the official's mistake of handing the ball to the wrong team? That seems to be rather analogous to the situation under discussion. Did this team gain an unfair advantage? Yep, but the goal stands anyway because that's the way the rules work.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Once again you seem to have a misunderstanding of something that the NFHS has written. The intent and purpose passage is directed at a player or team purposely trying to take advantage of a written rule in some way that it is not intended to be applied. It has nothing to do with a team benefitting when an official misses a call or misapplies a rule.

sez who?

[Indianaref]

What if the administrating official on a throw in tells the player he can run the end line when in fact it is a spot throw in. After putting the ball at the throwers disposal, he runs the end line, your partner from 20 ft away calls the violation. What now? I say you call the violation. I also think you count the bucket in the OP.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

If an official hands the ball to the wrong team for a throw-in and the throw-in is completed before anyone realizes that something has been administered incorrectly, what is the proper course of action?
Should the official stop play, erase the throw-in and award the ball to the proper team? No, the NFHS says that it is too late to correct the mistake.

The difference is that "all players" particiapte in the throw-in -- so this example is more like part (c) of the case play.

If an official says "2 shots", then s/he is preparing for two shots and it's going to take a second or two to realize why only one person attempted to rebound the basketball. During that time, I think the whistle can be sounded and we can go to the arrow -- even if the ball has passed through the basket.

No, I don't know exactly where the "line" is between correcting the error (and I don't mean to imply 2-10 with that phrase) and letting it go. Certainly, once the subsequent throw-in is complete it's too late. IMO, before the subsequent throw-in has started, it's not too late. During the subsequent throw-in???? (probably too late -- again, especially if all players are actively participating in the play).

And, I'll argue that this is the "spirit and intent" of the rule, and not what others have said in this thread.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

The difference is that "all players" particiapte in the throw-in -- so this example is more like part (c) of the case play.

If an official says "2 shots", then s/he is preparing for two shots and it's going to take a second or two to realize why only one person attempted to rebound the basketball. During that time, I think the whistle can be sounded and we can go to the arrow -- even if the ball has passed through the basket.

No, I don't know exactly where the "line" is between correcting the error (and I don't mean to imply 2-10 with that phrase) and letting it go. Certainly, once the subsequent throw-in is complete it's too late. IMO, before the subsequent throw-in has started, it's not too late. During the subsequent throw-in???? (probably too late -- again, especially if all players are actively participating in the play).

And, I'll argue that this is the "spirit and intent" of the rule, and not what others have said in this thread.

I with you bob....I was thinking last night of the same idea but for some reason couldn't come up with words I liked ( and didn't post ).

In my game, I'm considering the ball dead on the miss of the first shot after I annouce 2 shots if only 1 player plays the ball... It doesn't matter if it is my error or the tables.

[just another ref]

Apparently my "confusion" is shared by Bob and Camron. Nothing like being in good company.

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by Indianaref

What if the administrating official on a throw in tells the player he can run the end line when in fact it is a spot throw in. After putting the ball at the throwers disposal, he runs the end line, your partner from 20 ft away calls the violation. What now? I say you call the violation. I also think you count the bucket in the OP.

Along the same line, but a little different - during a timeout, an official tells a coach he has one remaining, but in fact, it is his last one. That coach subsequently requests and is granted a timeout. Is it a technical?

I would first admonish the official for relaying timeout information other than it being a final timeout, but in this case, I think you have to call the T since it is the coach who is primarily responsible for not requesting a timeout when none exists. However, would you make the call this way if a coach had asked the official scorer if he had any left and the scorer mistakenly said yes, when the answer should have been no - and the coach then requests and is granted one?

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

If an official says "2 shots", then s/he is preparing for two shots and it's going to take a second or two to realize why only one person attempted to rebound the basketball. During that time, I think the whistle can be sounded and we can go to the arrow -- even if the ball has passed through the basket.

No, I don't know exactly where the "line" is between correcting the error (and I don't mean to imply 2-10 with that phrase) and letting it go. Certainly, once the subsequent throw-in is complete it's too late. IMO, before the subsequent throw-in has started, it's not too late. During the subsequent throw-in???? (probably too late -- again, especially if all players are actively participating in the play).

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I with you bob....I was thinking last night of the same idea but for some reason couldn't come up with words I liked ( and didn't post ).

In my game, I'm considering the ball dead on the miss of the first shot after I annouce 2 shots if only 1 player plays the ball... It doesn't matter if it is my error or the tables.

Guys, need I remind you that it's not YOUR game. Your personal philosophy doesn't matter. As a game official your duty is to enforce the NFHS rules as written. The NFHS issued a POE about not putting your personal opinions and philosophies into administering the game. The committee stated that doing so was detrimental to the game. Just because you don't like the way that the rule is written doesn't mean that you can alter it.

[Indianaref]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Apparently my "confusion" is shared by Bob and Camron. Nothing like being in good company.

Yeah. I am a bit surprised all 3 of you guys are wrong.