Tough situation my partner put us in

[M&M Guy]

Camron, I was going to do the line-by-line answer, but thought I would save a little time. Nowhere in any of your replies do you reference 4-36. That is the heart of the issue. You seem to be implying this situation isn't covered anywhere in the rules, and thus are extrapolating a "common sense" answer based on other rules. Unfortunately, 4-36 covers it exactly, and there's no gray area involved. Any other ruling would go directly against 4-36.

And, btw, your case certainly does involve a correctable error. The 2nd FT was awarded when the official mistakenly said, "2 shots". Your statement about the FT having to be taken is incorrect based on 8-1-1. Only one player knew the correct amount, hence the confusion on the rebound. The case play explains how to handle that confusion.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Camron, I was going to do the line-by-line answer, but thought I would save a little time. Nowhere in any of your replies do you reference 4-36. That is the heart of the issue. You seem to be implying this situation isn't covered anywhere in the rules, and thus are extrapolating a "common sense" answer based on other rules. Unfortunately, 4-36 covers it exactly, and there's no gray area involved. Any other ruling would go directly against 4-36.

And, btw, your case certainly does involve a correctable error. The 2nd FT was awarded when the official mistakenly said, "2 shots". Your statement about the FT having to be taken is incorrect based on 8-1-1. Only one player knew the correct amount, hence the confusion on the rebound. The case play explains how to handle that confusion.

The problem with your reasoning is that case 8.6.1 is also covered by 4-36....ball becomes dead with a team in control an no infraction, goal, or end of period is involved. Yet, they go to the AP arrow instead of giving it to the team that had the ball.


And, no, 8.6.1 is not a correctabe error. It is an officials mistake. We've been through that before. If it was a CE situation, it would have been listed in a different section. Plus, the CE rule says that the play should be "resumed from the point of interruption to rectify the error," (2-10-6)...which is with team B having possession. Yet, 8.6.1 says to go to the AP arrow...contrary to what the CE rule says.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

The problem with your reasoning is that case 8.6.1 is also covered by 4-36....ball becomes dead with a team in control an no infraction, goal, or end of period is involved. Yet, they go to the AP arrow instead of giving it to the team that had the ball.


And, no, 8.6.1 is not a correctabe error. It is an officials mistake. We've been through that before. If it was a CE situation, it would have been listed in a different section. Plus, the CE rule says that the play should be "resumed from the point of interruption to rectify the error," (2-10-6)...which is with team B having possession. Yet, 8.6.1 says to go to the AP arrow...contrary to what the CE rule says.

Ok, cool, you've convinced me that your case is definitely not a correctable error.

Which, unfortunately for you, proves my point that 4-36 doesn't apply in your case and does in the original post.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Ok, cool, you've convinced me that your case is definitely not a correctable error.

Which, unfortunately for you, proves my point that 4-36 doesn't apply in your case and does in the original post.

How so?

I've provided a case (8.6.1) that says how to fix official's errors not by 4-36 nor CE rules....but by doing something different than either specify. If 8.6.1 is a valid case, then what makes it so? If it is valid, why doesn't it's principle apply when one team is clearly disadvantaged by the official's error?

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

How so?

I've provided a case (8.6.1) that says how to fix official's errors not by 4-36 nor CE rules....but by doing something different than either specify. If 8.6.1 is a valid case, then what makes it so? If it is valid, why doesn't it's principle apply when one team is clearly disadvantaged by the official's error?

Because 4-36 applies directly to the OP. You have yet to say why it doesn't.