Tough situation my partner put us in

[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?

[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

[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.

[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.

[truerookie]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

.

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

Snaqwells, we were cool (unbeknown to each other) until you brought the Chargers out of your mouth!!

[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.

[IREFU2]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

By rule you have an inadvertent whistle with White in possession, so White should get the ball.

But in your situation, summer camp, girls are there to work on their games, nothing is at stake, I'm leaning towards giving Blue the ball. Guess I'd HTBT though to get a feel of how things are going.

I concur here as well.

[icallfouls]

Very late to the discussion, but what happens to officials that incorrectly administer the rules?

There is usually some sort of suspension or disciplinary action. Assigners cannot defend an official that ignores the rules in order to make things feel good. You might have had to toss the entire blue coaching staff, but that is not the officials problem. They are supposed to know the rules also and conduct themselves appropriately.

Something that might have helped the situation would be to call the coaches over to the table. I might say something like "one of you is not going to like this, but here is what we have. Inadvertant whistle while white had team control. By rule, white will have possession."

I don't really see what is so hard about this situation. Officials can't be concerned with making an unpopular call.

I am sorry Smitty, but if I am you're assignor, I expect you to have thorough rules knowledge and to apply them correctly. Now you and your partner have shown a lack of rules knowledge. If you knew the rule, you could've saved you and your partner, but instead I now have to discipline you both for incorrectly administering a rule. Now when I am looking to assign games I have to put someone on the game with you that I know will get the rules correct.

Additionally, someone from both coaching staff's is likely going to try and determine what the real ruling should be, now they know you missed the rule for the next time they see you. Credibility has suffered with them as well.

In a camp setting, we are auditioning (in some cases) for better games. Officials that take care of business usually get advanced at a quicker rate. If the camp director has an issue with giving the ball back to white, I would tell the director we handled it by rule. What can he say? NOTHING, he didn't even have the rules support to suggest blue should get it.

[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.

[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.