Difference in ruling on same casebook play?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

I was thinking like Mary Struckhoff.

Still dreaming about your former high school sweetheart?

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Still dreaming about your former high school sweetheart?

You need to ask WeaselPants for some of his meds.

MTD, Sr.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

I was thinking like Mary Struckhoff.

As in "like like"?

[Texas Aggie]

I don't think the casebook play for G is correct (for the D subsection). The rule says "rectify the error," and if you give the ball to B for a throw in, you aren't rectifying it. Besides, it doesn't make any sense. How is it "correcting" an error when you are depriving team A of their rightful penalty enforcement?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Texas Aggie

I don't think the casebook play for G is correct (for the D subsection). The rule says "rectify the error," and if you give the ball to B for a throw in, you aren't rectifying it. Besides, it doesn't make any sense. How is it "correcting" an error when you are depriving team A of their rightful penalty enforcement?

The CE rules are not meant to be "fair," per se. Bob Jenkins says it better, but they're essentially designed to give both teams an incentive to try to prevent them as well.

A coach allowing a CE to continue in the hopes of benefiting is, essentially, eating a box of chocolates. He doesn't know what he's going to get.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

The CE rules are not meant to be "fair," per se. Bob Jenkins says it better, but they're essentially designed to give both teams an incentive to try to prevent them as well.

A coach allowing a CE to continue in the hopes of benefiting is, essentially, eating a box of chocolates. He doesn't know what he's going to get.

When it comes to coaches, stupid is as stupid does.

MTD, Sr.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

When it comes to coaches, stupid is as stupid does.

MTD, Sr.

It happens.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

The CE rules are not meant to be "fair," per se. Bob Jenkins says it better, but they're essentially designed to give both teams an incentive to try to prevent them as well.

Where is this written? Basically they are saying we are going to penalize a coach/team for not doing the officials' job?

If that is the philosophy behind how the CE rules are written then someone needs to go back to the drawing board and come up with some intelligent reasoning.

[chartrusepengui]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

When it comes to coaches, stupid is as stupid does.

MTD, Sr.

And that's all anyone has to say about that!!

[CMHCoachNRef]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Where is this written? Basically they are saying we are going to penalize a coach/team for not doing the officials' job?

If that is the philosophy behind how the CE rules are written then someone needs to go back to the drawing board and come up with some intelligent reasoning.

Actually, in most cases, it is the OFFICIAL SCORER who has either made a mistake or has not tallied everything in time NOT the officials. We discussed CEs awhile back. I agree with your line of thinking about the logic of it all. The situation in which TEAM A (the home team) gets fouled by Team B with the OFFICIAL SCORER (Team A scorer) indicating that it is a non-shooting foul situation. Team A then inbounds the ball, DRAINS a THREE. As soon as the ball goes through the hoop, the TEAM A TIMER sounds the horn to indicate that actually the foul was Team B's 7th hence a 1+1 should have been awarded. A1 makes both ends of the 1+1 for a five point play.

The fact that the CE rules do not wipe out the need for FTs when the team SCORED as a direct result of the awarded inbounds is beyond my comprehension.