Tough situation my partner put us in

[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"

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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"

So, in 5.8.3 SIT E (b), your conversation would go like this:

"Why am I getting a time out?"

"The call was a time out was granted."

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

"Time out, white. Full or 30 coach?"

Good luck with the rest of that conversation too. You know what an accidental/inadvertant whistle is, even without a written definition of that term. You're simply looking for an excuse to put your feelings of how you think the rules should be, above how the rules are actually written.

Too bad.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

So, in 5.8.3 SIT E (b), your conversation would go like this:

"Why am I getting a time out?"

"The call was a time out was granted."

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

"Time out, white. Full or 30 coach?"

Good luck with the rest of that conversation too. You know what an accidental/inadvertant whistle is, even without a written definition of that term. You're simply looking for an excuse to put your feelings of how you think the rules should be, above how the rules are actually written.

Too bad.

Apples and oranges

Assuming I believe that the coach actually did not intend to call a timeout, neither side would be properly served by shoving one down his throat. The OP is a totally different matter.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

You're simply looking for an excuse to put your feelings of how you think the rules should be, above how the rules are actually written.

If you want to put it that way, it's not really that hard to find an excuse in this case.

"A player or a team should not be permitted an advantage which is not intended by a rule."

That statement alone makes me comfortable giving the ball to blue.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by just another ref

If you want to put it that way, it's not really that hard to find an excuse in this case.

"A player or a team should not be permitted an advantage which is not intended by a rule."

That statement alone makes me comfortable giving the ball to blue.

I don't believe that the NFHS can be any clearer than this:

2006-07 NFHS Basketball Rules Interpretations

SITUATION 12: A1 is passing the ball to A2 in the frontcourt. The pass is deflected by B1 and is in the air when the official erroneously blows the whistle and grants a time-out request by (a) Team A's head coach, or (b) Team B's head coach. RULING: In (a) and (b), even though there was no player control and the ball was not dead, the time-out is entitled to be used since it was granted. The time-out once granted cannot be revoked and is charged to the appropriate team. The stoppage should be treated as an accidental whistle by the official and play shall resume at the point of interruption. Team A, which was in team control, is entitled to a throw-in at a spot nearest to where the ball was located (last in contact with a player or the court) when the stoppage occurred. (4-36-1, 2a; 5-8-3; 7-4-4)

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by just another ref

The OP is a totally different matter.

Oh? In both cases, the official blew the whistle to stop play, mistakenly thinking one thing had happened when actually nothing happened. In the OP, you are advocating allowing a mis-application of a rule (the backcourt violation) to fit your definition of "fair" (giving it to blue because they were about to get it).

So, what's your definition of an accidental whistle, within the context of the rules, and what case plays do you use to back it up?

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by just another ref

If you want to put it that way, it's not really that hard to find an excuse in this case.

That's all this argument really is about, an "excuse"? It's even easier to find the reason to give it back to white.

Originally Posted by just another ref

"A player or a team should not be permitted an advantage which is not intended by a rule."

That statement alone makes me comfortable giving the ball to blue.

Actually, this statement backs my point about giving it back to white. The intent of the putting the accidental whistle phrase in the POI rule is to remove any judgement about who would've, should've, could've gotten the ball, and just give it back to the team in control at the time of the whistle. (Or, of course, if no team control, then AP.) Looks pretty cut-and-dried from a rule intent, doesn't it? Nevada has included NFHS case plays that expand on the intent of the rule on POI after an accidental whistle.

The NCAA and Fed. rules on POI are almost exactly the same, with the only difference being NCAA also includes the women's penalty of a TI by the offended team for an excessive TO. So while we sometimes have to be careful about comparing rule sets, it's pretty easy in this case. The NCAA also includes a definition of an Inadvertant Whistle (4-39-1): "An inadvertent whistle occurs any time an official blows the whistle as an oversight and does not have a call to make." That looks like an easy transition to Fed. rules, since it fits in well with how the case plays handle accidental whistles.

For the last time, I don't disagree it's a shame blue didn't get the ball, because the official's screwup prevented their apparent easy layup. But the rule on POI is very clear, and the only arguments against it are not based on the rule itself, but on extrapolations from other rules, or even purposely mis-calling a play to get the "desired" result. It's not our job to make calls to fit our definition of fair, but to make calls based on the rules.

If this discussion is really about what calls would be made in a camp setting, or rec league setting vs. an actual sanctioned game, that's not what I'm discussing. I'm only pointing out the rule, and we can never go wrong following the rules. What's set aside or ignored in lower-level games is another discussion.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Let's turn to page 7 in our books.

THE INTENT AND PURPOSE OF THE RULES

A player or team should not be permitted an advantage which is not intended by a rule.




Give the ball to blue.

NO!! NO!! NO!! There is specific rule that covers this situation and unfortunately White is awarded a designated spot throw-in.

MTD, Sr.

[M&M Guy]

Maybe that's my problem - I haven't used big red letters.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Actually, this statement backs my point about giving it back to white. The intent of the putting the accidental whistle phrase in the POI rule is to remove any judgement about who would've, should've, could've gotten the ball, and just give it back to the team in control at the time of the whistle. (Or, of course, if no team control, then AP.) Looks pretty cut-and-dried from a rule intent, doesn't it? Nevada has included NFHS case plays that expand on the intent of the rule on POI after an accidental whistle.

The NCAA and Fed. rules on POI are almost exactly the same, with the only difference being NCAA also includes the women's penalty of a TI by the offended team for an excessive TO. So while we sometimes have to be careful about comparing rule sets, it's pretty easy in this case. The NCAA also includes a definition of an Inadvertant Whistle (4-39-1): "An inadvertent whistle occurs any time an official blows the whistle as an oversight and does not have a call to make." That looks like an easy transition to Fed. rules, since it fits in well with how the case plays handle accidental whistles.

For the last time, I don't disagree it's a shame blue didn't get the ball, because the official's screwup prevented their apparent easy layup. But the rule on POI is very clear, and the only arguments against it are not based on the rule itself, but on extrapolations from other rules, or even purposely mis-calling a play to get the "desired" result. It's not our job to make calls to fit our definition of fair, but to make calls based on the rules.

If this discussion is really about what calls would be made in a camp setting, or rec league setting vs. an actual sanctioned game, that's not what I'm discussing. I'm only pointing out the rule, and we can never go wrong following the rules. What's set aside or ignored in lower-level games is another discussion.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

We can never go wrong following the rules.

Amen.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Maybe that's my problem. I haven't used big red letters.

Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. has never been known to fly under the radar. He always says what he means, and he always means what he says. You always know exactly where he stands on an issue. No if, ands, buts, ors, or nors, about it.

[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!

[tomegun]

Are we really talking about administering a rule - which is obvious - or about what may come as a result? Sometimes we have to "get our hands dirty" and in this case it should be a lesson learned...unless the official takes the easy way out and begins to develop this action as a habit. Nevada, M&M and others have done a great job of breaking down the rule. That being the case, it seems like we are trying to find some wiggle room so all hell doesn't break lose.

I had a partner blow an inadvertant whistle, on a phantom shot clock violation, in a college game...in overtime! The arrow was pointing to the team with the lead. My partner had that "what did I do?" look on his face and was hesitant to go talk to the coaches. Knowing it would be a longer conversation if he did it, I went and told the coaches what we had and what we were going to do. Our ONLY saving grace was there was 5.4 on the game clock and the team that was losing was down by too much to come back (they ran out of steam in regulation). If the game had been close, we would have needed security to get us out of there.

Ironically, the guy who made this call was full of confidence and talking (too much) on the ride there and in the locker room during pregame. On the ride home...not so much

I say it should be white's ball, let the blue coach act how he may and we may possibly be going home early once we remove the blue coaching staff!

[Juulie Downs]

Originally Posted by 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.

Wow, Jim, I'm not sure you're the one on this board with the very most experience, and highest level of play under your belt, but you sure are right up there near the top, and you've totally been ignored by everyone. Well, don't take it too personally. I listened (for what that's worth!).