Tough situation my partner put us in

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I'm extrapolating from the principles established in other rules....that when an unusual official's error is made, correct it with fairness, even if the rules covering normal situations don't agree. 8.6.1 give us that thinking. That is the closest case we've got to the OP situation.

Nope, correct it according to the rules.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Nope, correct it according to the rules.

Then explain 8.6.1. What rule tells you to to the AP arrow when you kill the ball with it in team control and there is no infraction, end of period, or goal involved?

[rsl]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Then explain 8.6.1. What rule tells you to to the AP arrow when you kill the ball with it in team control and there is no infraction, end of period, or goal involved?

In 8.6.1, It is not clear the ball was ever live. The referee said two shots, so one interpretation is that when B1 grabbed the rebound he was just grabbing a dead ball. The referee said two shots, so the ball was dead. Another interpretation is that there should have been one shot, so it should be live. In this case, the ref's error actually put the live/dead ball status in question.

I think the first interp is correct, since it consistent with both the case play and 4-36.

And frankly, other than both involve a ref error, I think it is a stretch to quote 8.6.1 in the context of the OP

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by rsl

In 8.6.1, It is not clear the ball was ever live. The referee said two shots, so one interpretation is that when B1 grabbed the rebound he was just grabbing a dead ball. The referee said two shots, so the ball was dead. Another interpretation is that there should have been one shot, so it should be live. In this case, the ref's error actually put the live/dead ball status in question.

I think the first interp is correct, since it consistent with both the case play and 4-36.

And frankly, other than both involve a ref error, I think it is a stretch to quote 8.6.1 in the context of the OP

If both teams played the rebound, the ball is considered live. So that interpretation is not accurate.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

If both teams played the rebound, the ball is considered live. So that interpretation is not accurate.

Well, that's covered in 8.6.1(c), and the reason they continue to play is because the players were not affected by the official's erroneous information and played the ball correctly.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Well, that's covered in 8.6.1(c), and the reason they continue to play is because the players were not affected by the official's erroneous information and played the ball correctly.

Hmmm. So the ball is dead in one case and live in the other based on what whether the players act or not. I don't recall seeing that in the definition of live/dead ball.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Hmmm. So the ball is dead in one case and live in the other based on what whether the players act or not. I don't recall seeing that in the definition of live/dead ball.

Well, we've gotten so far off-topic I'm lost over what we are currently discussing. I'm not here to argue the logic of how the rules are written, just that we do it according to how they're written. In the case we are currently discussing, there is doubt as to whether the ball is live or dead, hence the case play was written to cover what to do. (Btw, it's still a correctable error situation. )

Going back to the OP, it's still pretty straight forward - the official blew the whistle when they shouldn't have. Oops. So, what do we do now? 4-36 tells we go back to the point of interruption, which is giving to the team last in control for a throw-in at a spot closest to where the ball was at the time of the whistle. (Not to who should get it, who would've had it had the whistle not blown, what's fair, etc., etc.)

Is it "fair" to the other team? Maybe not, but that's not my concern at the moment. Who knows, maybe someone on the committee is reading this, (woke up from their nap), and realized they need to re-write the POI rules. In the meantime, it's best to follow the rules as written. And, it goes without saying, to know the other rules so you don't have one of those accidental whistles.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Then explain 8.6.1. What rule tells you to to the AP arrow when you kill the ball with it in team control and there is no infraction, end of period, or goal involved?

8.6.1 is a published ruling by the NFHS committee telling one how to handle a specific mistake by an official of verbally misinforming the players. That is the ruling which tells one to kill the play while the ball is in team control and use the AP arrow.
There is no such ruling for an inadvertent/accidental whistle as in the OP. Therefore, one needs to follow the rules. It is not the job of the game official to set aside the rules whenever he feels that they are unfair. The rule writers determine what is fair and set down the rules according to that. We are not to override their judgment. If a rule creates a poor outcome, then people will work to have it changed. Until then, it needs to be followed.

Sorry, but what you are advocating doing here is inappropriate.

[RookieDude]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Sorry, but what you are advocating doing here is inappropriate.

...and so was WATERBOARDING...but, we got the desired results.

[just another ref]

Where is the definition of inadvertent/accidental whistle? As far as I know, there is not one. Does one official stop the game and try to talk his partner out of every bad violation call that he sees? This is a bad call, and everybody knows it, or should know it. It is only an accidental whistle if the officials choose to say so after the fact. But it is a bad call which produces at least part of the correct result. (blue gets the ball, but according to the op, should have had a layup) Let the bad call stand. Give the ball to blue. Move on.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Where is the definition of inadvertent/accidental whistle? As far as I know, there is not one.

2008-09 NFHS Basketball Case Book

ACCIDENTAL WHISTLE
7.5.3 SITUATION: An official sounds his/her whistle accidentally: (a) while A1 is dribbling and in player control; (b) while Team A is in control and passing among teammates; (c) while A1's unsuccessful try attempt is in flight; or (d) while A’s successful try attempt is in flight. RULING: The ball is put in play at the point of interruption. In (a) and (b), Team A is awarded a throw-in at the nearest out-of-bounds spot to where the ball was when the whistle was accidentally sounded. In (c) and (d), the ball does not become dead until the try ends. In (c), since there is no team control when the ball becomes dead, the ball is put in play by the team entitled to the throw-in using the alternating-possession procedure. In (d), since a goal has been scored by Team A, the ball is given to Team B for a throw-in anywhere along the end line. (7-4-4; 4-12-3,6; 4-36)


*5.8.3 SITUATION E: A1 is dribbling the ball in his/her backcourt when: (a) the Team B head coach requests and is erroneously granted a time-out by an official; or (b) the Team A head coach is yelling “side out” offensive instructions to his/her team and the official stops play believing the coach requested a time-out. RULING: In (a), Team B is entitled to use the time-out since it was requested and granted; once granted it cannot be revoked and is charged to Team B. All privileges and rights permitted during a charged time-out are available to both teams. Play will resume with a Team A throw-in nearest to where play was stopped. In (b), an accidental whistle has occurred. Team A was not requesting a time-out, and therefore, should not be granted or charged with one. Play is resumed at the point of interruption. (4-36-1; 4-36-2a)

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Just don't tell Chargers fans this, or they'll get all riled up again.

That's funny.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

2008-09 NFHS Basketball Case Book

ACCIDENTAL WHISTLE
7.5.3 SITUATION: An official sounds his/her whistle accidentally: (a) while A1 is dribbling and in player control; (b) while Team A is in control and passing among teammates; (c) while A1's unsuccessful try attempt is in flight; or (d) while A’s successful try attempt is in flight. RULING: The ball is put in play at the point of interruption. In (a) and (b), Team A is awarded a throw-in at the nearest out-of-bounds spot to where the ball was when the whistle was accidentally sounded. In (c) and (d), the ball does not become dead until the try ends. In (c), since there is no team control when the ball becomes dead, the ball is put in play by the team entitled to the throw-in using the alternating-possession procedure. In (d), since a goal has been scored by Team A, the ball is given to Team B for a throw-in anywhere along the end line. (7-4-4; 4-12-3,6; 4-36)


*5.8.3 SITUATION E: A1 is dribbling the ball in his/her backcourt when: (a) the Team B head coach requests and is erroneously granted a time-out by an official; or (b) the Team A head coach is yelling “side out” offensive instructions to his/her team and the official stops play believing the coach requested a time-out. RULING: In (a), Team B is entitled to use the time-out since it was requested and granted; once granted it cannot be revoked and is charged to Team B. All privileges and rights permitted during a charged time-out are available to both teams. Play will resume with a Team A throw-in nearest to where play was stopped. In (b), an accidental whistle has occurred. Team A was not requesting a time-out, and therefore, should not be granted or charged with one. Play is resumed at the point of interruption. (4-36-1; 4-36-2a)

This is not a definition, but merely an example. It was not an accidental whistle until the official declared it to be one. In the OP, a improper backcourt call serves the game better than an accidental whistle call. I have no problem giving the ball to blue. If you need an explanation based on the rules, this is it.

"Why does blue get the ball?"

"The call was over and back."

"But we didn't......."

"Blue ball"

[CoachP]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

2008-09 NFHS Basketball Case Book

*5.8.3 SITUATION E: A1 is dribbling the ball in his/her backcourt when: (a) the Team B head coach requests and is erroneously granted a time-out by an official; or (b) the Team A head coach is yelling “side out” offensive instructions to his/her team and the official stops play believing the coach requested a time-out. RULING: In (a), Team B is entitled to use the time-out since it was requested and granted; once granted it cannot be revoked and is charged to Team B. All privileges and rights permitted during a charged time-out are available to both teams. Play will resume with a Team A throw-in nearest to where play was stopped. In (b), an accidental whistle has occurred. Team A was not requesting a time-out, and therefore, should not be granted or charged with one. Play is resumed at the point of interruption. (4-36-1; 4-36-2a)


That's funny.

That's why I changed one of my plays names. I named it "Hoof Hearted" after the famous horse.

YouTube - Hoof Hearted wins!

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Where is the definition of inadvertent/accidental whistle? As far as I know, there is not one. Does one official stop the game and try to talk his partner out of every bad violation call that he sees? This is a bad call, and everybody knows it, or should know it. It is only an accidental whistle if the officials choose to say so after the fact. But it is a bad call which produces at least part of the correct result. (blue gets the ball, but according to the op, should have had a layup) Let the bad call stand. Give the ball to blue. Move on.

Nevada provided the case play I was looking for - the one where the official blows the whistle for a TO when the coach actually yells, "Side out!". As you said, everyone knows it's a bad call, but do we live with that call and give the team the TO anyway? No, because it's considered an accidental whistle and play is resumed at POI, per rule. Insert the "side out"/accidental TO request scenario instead of the wrong backcourt violation call into the OP - does it change how you rule? Do you rule opposite the case play and still give it to the other team because they "should've gotten it anyway"?

You are right that Fed. does not have a specific definition of accidental whistle like the NCAA: their definition of an accidental whistle is when the official blows the whistle when there is not a call to be made. Given many of the case plays are the same, it's not a stretch to use that same definition in NFHS. I can give you an example of a case in NCAA where the particulars are very similar to the OP's play - in NCAA-W a player cannot request a TO while in the air heading OOB or towards the backcourt, in order to save a violation. If A1's TO request is made in the air, and the official mistakenly blows the whistle to grant the TO, the result is there is no TO granted, and A gets the ball for a throw-in because they had team control at the time of the accidental whistle. Yep, if the official would've held their whistle, A1 would've landed OOB and violated, and B would get the ball. But the official screwed up, and B will not get the ball. Doesn't sound "fair", but that's the rule involving POI.