official mistake

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by Spence

Is the reason that this is not a correctable error because only one player went after the rebound?

What if the OP said that both A2 and B2 went for the rebound and B2 got it and scored and a)one official blew his whistle because two shots had been awarded or b)no official blows the whistle to stop play until the desk signals that there is a problem prior to B putting the ball in play?

Read the case play and you may better understand it.

[Spence]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

Read the case play and you may better understand it.

I read it which sparked the question/confusion.

I also read 2.10.1 B.

Does 8.6.1 deal with an immediate known error while 2.10.1 deals with an error that is not immediately discovered?

[BktBallRef]

8.6.1 deals with an official's mistake.

2.10.1b deals with a correctable error of not awarding a merited FT.

The original post is not a correctable error because a unmerited FT was not awarded, as the second FT was never shot. The officlal gave the wrong info to both teams. To allow A2 to keep the ball because he rebounded it would unfair to B. Further, allowing A to keep the basket, which is what NVRef suggested, would be even more unfair.

Nothing in 2-10 or 2.10 has anything to do with this play. It's a completely different sitch from a rule standpoint.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

8.6.1 deals with an official's mistake.

2.10.1b deals with a correctable error of not awarding a merited FT.

The original post is not a correctable error because a unmerited FT was not awarded, as the second FT was never shot. The officlal gave the wrong info to both teams. To allow A2 to keep the ball because he rebounded it would unfair to B. Further, allowing A to keep the basket, which is what NVRef suggested, would be even more unfair.

Nothing in 2-10 or 2.10 has anything to do with this play. It's a completely different sitch from a rule standpoint.

I never said that it was fair, Tony. I just said that BY RULE the player has scored a legal goal, and that there is no rules support for cancelling that.

This is similar to the discussion that we had last year about the FT shooter losing the ball and then stepping into the lane to chase after it BEFORE an official sounded a whistle. Even you said that was a violation on the shooter BY RULE. Here is a link to that thread:

Free Throw Violation

Of course, that debate is now moot due to the new part b of 9.1.1.

PS Please note that I did not suggest that Team A be allowed to keep the basket.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I never said that it was fair.

Let me see...no,....nothing there....no......nope. Nowhere did I say that you said it was fair. I simply made my own observation.

I just said that BY RULE the player has scored a legal goal, and that there is no rules support for cancelling that.

No, he has not scored a legal goal. The ball is dead when he rebounds it. It makes no difference whether he shoots it, double dribbles it, or throws it OOB. The case play is clear, at least to most eveyone else. There's nothing magical about shooting a dead ball.

This is similar toh the discussion that we had last year about the FT shooter losing the ball and then stepping into the lane to chase after it BEFORE an official sounded a whistle. Even you said that was a violation on the shooter BY RULE. Here is a link to that thread:

Free Throw Violation

Wrong again, Tutts. This is a live ball situation. The whistle is required to kill the play.

The OP is a dead ball sitaution.

Of course, that debate is now moot due to the new part b of 9.1.1.

PS Please note that I did not suggest that Team A be allowed to keep the basket.

You didn't?

Then, what does this suggest?

"Without that happening, I don't see how the basket can be cancelled."

Make up your mind.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

No, he has not scored a legal goal. The ball is dead when he rebounds it.

Really??? What makes it dead?--The official incorrectly saying two shots? I don't think so. It was supposed to be 1-and-1 and the ball was properly made live during the FT and remains live on the miss. I disagree 100% with your assertion that the ball is dead at this time.

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

The case play is clear, at least to most eveyone else. There's nothing magical about shooting a dead ball.

Yep, the case play definitely is clear, "Play should be whistled dead immediately..." The ball clearly isn't already dead. It needs to be whistled dead.

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

Then, what does this suggest?

"Without that happening, I don't see how the basket can be cancelled."

I was simply...



and you...





This play is analogous to our previous discussion of that FT violation and my position is exactly the same as it was in there. BY RULE this is a legal goal and there is nothing in the book that permits the official to cancel the score after it has happened. However, a good official will bend the rules in this situation.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Really??? What makes it dead?--The official incorrectly saying two shots? I don't think so. It was supposed to be 1-and-1 and the ball was properly made live during the FT and remains live on the miss. I disagree 100% with your assertion that the ball is dead at this time.

6-7-2a:

The ball becomes dead when it is apparent the free throw will not be successful on a free throw which is to be followed by another free throw.



If the official says there will be another free throw, right or wrong, there will be another free throw until the official says otherwise.

We have had this conversation before.