Tough situation my partner put us in

[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.