Tough situation my partner put us in
 

I'm in a camp scenario working with someone with only a couple years experience. The camp is using rec league middle school games, which is a whole other issue, but I digress. Situation:

White ahead by 15 and clearly will win by a lot more. I've already T'd a Blue team assistant coach. I am lead tableside, first half. Partner is trail opposite table. White is in possession, player is dribbling in my primary and loses control of the ball. Ball is heading toward sideline out of bounds. Dribbler catches up and flings the ball into her backcourt to avoid the ball going out of bounds. The only player back there is a blue player who is poised to retrieve the ball after it bounces and will have an easy layup. However...

As soon as the ball bounces in the backcourt, my partner blows his whistle and calls an over and back violation on White. There's not a White team player within 10 feet of the ball. When I go over and ask what he's doing, he has the deer in the headlights look. He realizes he's kicked it, but now what do we do? Do we give it to White since they were the team in control, even though they could not have touched the ball without violating? What would you do?

Wow.

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.

4-36 covers it quite nicely. Since it's an accidental whistle, the ball is put in play by: "A throw-in to the team that was in control at a spot nearest to where the ball was located when the stoppage occured". So if the whistle happened before blue got possession, white gets it back. If the whistle happens after blue got the ball, then blue gets the throw-in.

At least he got the "deer-in-headlights look" rather than arguing with you that he was right.

By rule, in a camp setting, I guess we should go with an IW & give it back to White since they still had TC.

But common sense tells me to go with an IW & just give it to Blue as they are getting smashed & you can already predict the outcome of the game. Plus I'd hate to have to whack somebody else on Blue for our mistake.

Tell the newbie that camp is a good opportunity to work on game management techniques and send him/her over to the blue coach to explain.

My partner was insistent that white should get the ball back and I was trying to figure out a way, by rule, that we should give it to blue. But I couldn't. It was chaos. The blue bench was going ballistic and while he was being hammered by them (this wasn't the first inadvertent whistle he had in the game, so I didn't care that he was getting hammered), I quietly slid over to the camp directors and asked what we should do. They said give it to Blue. I didn't ask for an explanation, I just pulled my partner back from the fray and said we were giving it to Blue. That seemed to calm things down.

After the game I asked the camp director what his reasoning was to give it to blue. He said after thinking about it, by rule it should have been White ball, but based on the game situation, and the fact that I'd probably have had to toss the entire Blue coaching staff had we given it to White, giving it to blue was the right thing to do in that situation.

This is how we learn...

I'm still not sure we did the right thing or not. If it wasn't a camp, I probably would have been happy enough tossing the entire Blue coaching staff. And my partner along with them...

In this particular situation you did the right thing, though is wasn't correct.

In a REAL game you would have had to calmly explain to Blue's coach the error of your (crew) ways and that by rule White gets the ball. That's where that communication thing comes in handy. :)

I think you did the right thing. I made an error in State Tourney 2 years ago that I'm thouroughly embarrased by. I fixed it the "right way" rather than the "rule" way. On my evaluation, I was criticized for making the error but not the way I fixed it.

There are many "right" solutions to odd situations that don't have rules support.

In your case, the rules were never written with the expectation of randomly inserted inadvertant whistles. Sure, there is a rules way that can be used to cover them, but that wasn't what that rule was really intended for either.

I think the right thing was done, and honestly, in a non-camp setting at that level of ball in that situation, I would have just done it that way without thinking twice. The camp setting would have given me pause, however.

That's the thing that really messed me up the most. I was so concerned with the fact that I was being observed while all the chaos ensued, that I could not think straight and I just overloaded. It was a great learning experience, after the fact, as it was easily the most bizarre situation I've ever been involved with. If anything remotely like this ever happens again, I will at least act a lot quicker and get the game going again.

Because I was being evaluated at the time, all I was concerned about was a rule way to cover the situation. It just seemed so wrong, but I wasn't really thinking in terms of right and wrong at that moment. Which is why I just caved and asked the camp director what we should do. I felt pretty stupid, but I was already under the bus, what's a couple more wheels rolling over me gonna do? :o

You could also tell your P to be ready to tell the blue coach that camp is a good time to learn how to handle being on the short end of crappy rules. :D

Let's turn to page 7 in our books.



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




Give the ball to blue.

The outcome is correct by common sense and justifiable by rule. This was not an inadvertant whistle and should not be treated as such. Your partner erroneously called a backcourt violation and should live with the call. He should award the ball to blue and play on.

This was rec league. I was shocked that the camp was being held during a rec league tourney. The coaches couldn't have cared less about the rules. They did not know we were running a camp - nor would they have cared. These were the kind of people who would rant and rave if they were happy, let alone when they were unhappy. There was no good to come out of trying to explain anything to the coaches. It was the worst of all worlds crashing together all at once.

It reminded me of being in a "Want to get away?" Southwest Air commercial...

You ever take away a violation call? I've done it due to confusing lines. I've had partners do it, one after he recognized it was a throwin so the action was legal; the other after I went to him as lead to tell him it had been tipped by the defense in the lane.

It absolutely is an inadvertent whistle, but Camron is right, I think, about the purpose and intent. The IW (or "accidental whistle" as I believe it's called) rule was written to have a fair way of putting the ball back in play. It was not meant to take away an obvious possession like this.

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

Common sense? So what? Are you really saying you would make a ruling based on not wanting the blue team to get upset with you (and the crew)?

Do you have a rule reference?

So, here we go with the "common sense" vs. "rule" argument. Color me old and grumpy, but I see one major flaw with the argument. It goes completely against 4-36. Yep, one team got screwed out of a score because the official made the mistake of blowing the whistle when they should not have. Too bad - there's a rule to fix that. Once they feel the heat, I'll bet they don't do that again.

So, you give the ball to blue because they might get upset? If I'm white's coach, I'm really going to get upset that you're compounding a screwup with completely ignoring a specific rule. You're going to be getting heat one way or the other, so why not get it right one of those times? And if the heat's too bad, there's a rule to fix that as well. ;)

Look, I understand the issue of rec leagues, camp situation etc. And, if the whistle happend so close to blue getting the ball, I would have no problem with blue ending up with possession. But as I read the OP, the whistle sounded well before blue ended up with it, so white still has team control, and white will have the throw-in.

Have a look at the case plays regarding an official incorrectly announcing the number of FTs. The rulings in these plays are not based on the rules. In fact, some of them technically contradict rules. But, the rulings are common sense and do the right thing.

I completely understand your point of view as well. It was just such a weird situation because White could not have legally touched the ball at the time of the whistle, so that compounded my confusion. I still think by rule, white should get the ball, but I also would lean toward giving it to blue based on the situation.

I really wish my partner hadn't blown his whistle - then the girl on blue could have missed her layup and white would have had the ball anyway. :)

I agree with your premise. I am tired of everything we do is not to piss someone off. We already pissed someone off by making an obvious mistake. Why compound it by not following the rules in this case?

Peace

What about this....

With no player near, the ball is sailing OOB towards the wall but has yet to hit the wall. How many of you have ever blown the whistle or have seen a partner blow the whistle before the ball actually makes contact with the wall, even if only just a fraction of a second? OK, now that just about every one has realized they have seen this happen, how many of you have given the ball to or have gone to that partner and informed them that they had to give the ball to the team that threw the ball? Given the argument of 4-36, you should! Now will you in the future? Didn't think so.

The cases you mention involve correctable errors - a specific section of the rules. I can also show you a case play where the official gives the ball to the wrong team for a throw-in, and once the ball is inbounds, it's too late to correct - 7.5.2(a). Wouldn't it make "common sense" to stop play and give it back to the correct team? But we cannot, because it's not a correctable error.

The difference here is this play is not a correctable error, the whistle caused play to stop, and any ruling you make would be based on an assumption. You are assuming blue would catch the ball cleanly and not fumble it OOB. Would you also make the ruling blue would've made the easy layup? Why not save some time and just count the basket and give it back to white for the endline throw-in? How far ahead would you go to assume? The rule involving POI is pretty specific, and apparently doesn't need any additional case plays to expand.

Again, I understand the "theory" of trying to insert common sense into strange situations, and I would not object to giving it to blue if the whistle happened so close to the change of possession it would be hard to tell which happened first. Unfortunately, this is covered specifically in the rules, and doing something else would be a specific deviation from the rules.

That's not an inadvertant/accidental whistle, but simply an early whistle.

The NCAA actually has a definition of an inadvertant whistle - when the official blows the whistle when there is no call to make. Fed. doesn't have that specific definition, but I don't think there would be many who would argue that would apply here. In your OOB example, there is a call to make - it was just made early. However, if you see the players stop playing when there was a chance of someone saving the ball, then, yes, it would be an accidental whistle and the ball would go back to the team last in control.

Oh really? Where is that defined? At the time the whistle has blown, there had not yet been a violation. That is an inadvertant whistle.

Let's assume you're correct for the moment. For the OP, that would then lead us to the conclusion that the official was just blowing the whistle early for a backcourt violation and still give it to the other team.

Follow the rule and give white the ball.
Too bad that your partner screwed up, but don't screw up with him.
It's not your job to try to fix his mistakes. It's your job to administer the game according to the rules.

Actually, the case I'm referring to is not a correctable error (see below).

We have a specific case on that error. There is a window where the error is correctable...up to the point where the throwin has been completed (there is actually rules support that this is correctable and I've posted about that previously). This gives the team a chance to bring it to the official's attention. If not cut off at that point in time, how late would be too late?


See the following case...the whistle causes the play to stop in a non correctable error situation with one team in control of the ball and the ruling doesn't go with the POI.

Case Play 8.6.1

A1 is about to attempt the first of a one-and-one free throw situation. The administering official steps in and erroneously informs players that two shots will be taken. A1's first attempt is unsuccessful. The missed shot is rebounded by: (a)B1, with all other players motionless in anticipation of another throw....The officials recognize their error at this point.

Ruling: In (a) the officials error clearly put one team at a disadvantage.... Play should be whistled dead immediately and resumed using the alternating-possession procedure.

The only relevant rule says to give it to the team that was in control when the ball becomes dead. However, the ruling does not give the ball to the team that was in control at the time the ball became dead but goes to the AP arrow. It makes the assumption that, even though it is most likely, Team B may not have obtained the rebound. It does what is right...making the assumption that either team may have retreived the rebound...and goes to the AP arrow.

In the realm of official's errors, 8.6.1 sets the precedent for resuming in contradiction to what the rules support when one team clearly has gained an advantage through the officials error when the normal rules are followed.

Given that, in the OP, there was no way for team A to legally retrieve the ball, the precedent set by the above case supports, at a minimum, going to the arrow if not awarding the ball to the blue team.

I disagree with your premise, Camron.
The reason that the ruling in 8.6.1 instructs the officials to use the arrow and states that the official put one team at a disadvantage is because of the official's verbal instruction to the players just prior to making the ball live. Players have the expectation that they can listen to and follow the referee's instructions. To penalize them for doing so would be improper.

However, in this backcourt scenario at no time does the referee instruct the players from one team to not go for the ball. All that he does is blow a whistle and stop play improperly. Neither team was put at a prior disadvantage. Therefore, your analogy doesn't hold water.

The backcourt play is no different than an official calling a traveling violation that wasn't there and taking the ball away from a team. It was just a bad whistle. Sometimes those happen. When they do, you follow the proper rules for the situation and move on with the game.

Oh, crap...I agree with Nevada. Maybe I should reconsider?... :D

Awarding an unmerited free throw certainly is one of the 5 correctable errors. And this case explains one of the ways to make the correction after discovering the correctable error.

You've made great arguments in favor of using common sense, but none of them are supported by rule. You have yet to give me any specific case play involving POI and accidental whistles that supports giving the ball to blue, only extrapolations from other areas of the rules. Common sense tells me that if I give A1 the ball for a throw-in, when B is entitled to the throw-in, I should be able to correct it as soon as I realize the mistake, even after the ball is inbounds. And I can find other areas of the rules that support making a correction when it's discovered, not just within certain time limits (such as correcting a score). But I would be going against a specific case to make that ruling. That's the same thing you are doing - you are extrapolating from other areas of the rules to support something that goes against a specific rule or case already in place. It's very clear in the OP the ball is awarded to the team last in control at the time of the accidental whistle, as per 4-36-2(a).

He called a violation. No matter how wrong this call is, it would not be as wrong as giving the ball back to white.

Just a thought here guys to add to the discussion....

Are we sure that team A is still in control?

Obviously we have an interrupted dribble....however, she is able to regain the ball, albeit momentarily and fling it into the backcourt...

Now, we know team control extends through a pass...but, can we consider this a pass? She flings the ball to an area where none of her teammates can even go get it...how can that be a pass?

One could make the argument that white has lost control of it and we are in a loose ball situation....thus we have to go with the arrow because we can't just assume the blue player was going to retrieve it....

just a thought ;)

CLH, exactly how did white "lose" control of the ball? And use the rules definition of team control, not a dictionary definition of the word control, ok? That way you will answer my question AND your theory at the same time.;)

An interrupted dribble suspends player control, but not team control.

Yes I realize there is team control during an interrupted dribble....thanks ;)

Art. 1. A player shall be in control when:
a. Holding a live ball; or
b. Dribbling a live ball while inbounds.

Art. 2. A team shall be in control when:
a. A player of the team is in control;
b. While a live ball is being passed between teammates; or
c. When a player of that team has disposal of the ball for a throw-in.
d. During an interrupted dribble.

Obviously, we've lost player control and retained team control...noone argued that...the interrupted dribble has ended, she was able to get back to the ball and fling it in the backcourt...for discussions sake, do you consider the provisions of Art. 2 to be in effect for this "pass"...would you consider this a pass?...why would a pass between teammates be to a place where a teammate can't ever retrieve it...

BTW, I'm not stupid, I'm giving the ball back to white because thats the best course of action in this one. It's obviously splitting hairs in the rules...I get that...this is just for discussion sake guys

Keep going.

Team control shall continue until ....

And, none of those things happened.

Well, we can always stay in Rule 4 and check on the actual definition of a Pass: "A pass is movement of the ball caused by a player who throws, bats, or rolls the ball to another player".

Notice it doesn't say "teammate", it says "another player". So whether a teammate can or cannot retrieve it doesn't seem to be an issue. The only question is whether you determine if the player actually threw it, batted it, or rolled it. If so, then it's a pass.

And, as Bob points out, whether it's a pass or not doesn't matter, because team control continues until 4-12-3 and 4-12-4.

All good, except for the fact that 8.6.1 is not a correctable error. The FT was never awarded...to be awarded, it has to be taken.

It does, however, provide a way to correct an officials error fairly when it is obvious that an officials error created a result that was not intended.

Likewise, you've yet to provide ANY case that involves an inadvertant whistle anticipating a violation.

As for the throwin, it has to be cut-off at some point....up to the point where the ball is inbounds. If it were any later, you'd have some nasty situations that could result when the teams try to use such situations to thier advantage.

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.

Art. 2. A team shall be in control when:
a. A player of the team is in control;
b. While a live ball is being passed between teammates; or

I'm just saying...lol

This would be what some refer to as suffering from "paralysis of analysis" ;)

But - as Bob posted above - none of the requirements for team control ending have been met, so how do you justify saying that white no longer had team control?

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.

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. :)

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?

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?

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

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)

That's funny. :D

I concur here as well.

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.

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.

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.

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. :eek:

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.

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.

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)

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 <B>your</B> definition of an accidental whistle, within the context of the rules, and what case plays do you use to back it up?

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

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.

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

MTD, Sr.

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

You Can Say That Again ...
 

Amen.

And We All Love Him For It ...
 

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.

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

YouTube - Hoof Hearted wins!

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 :D

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!

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!).

From the original OP: "As soon as the ball bounces in the backcourt, my partner blows his whistle and calls an over and back violation on White.There's not a White team player within 10 feet of the ball. When I go over and ask what he's doing, he has the deer in the headlights look. He realizes he's kicked it, but now what do we do? Do we give it to White since they were the team in control, even though they could not have touched the ball without violating? What would you do?"
Why do we automatically assume that by rule we have an accidental or inadvertant whistle? Sounds like we just have a really, really bad call. The partner, who BTW was trail and thus it was his call to make (or in this case, blow) called a violation...he got it wrong, but he called a violation nonetheless. What if A1 were standing holding the ball and partner whistled him for a traveling violation? Would you rule an accidental or inadvertant whistle just because he made an incredibly bad travel violation call? What if partner called a foul and you and everyone else in the gym saw that the "fouler" was at least 5 feet away from the fouled player and there was absolutely, positively no way there was a foul? Would you assume an accidental or inadvertant whistle and step in and call it such because your partner is an idiot? Would you intervene on every "bad" call you determine your partner made by using the accidental or inadvertant whistle defense? And don't tell me you've never said to yourself after a horrible call by a partner, "Self, dude just made a horrible call!" and then proceeded to enforce his crappy call. Seems in this OP our crew would just have to live with this particularly horrible call. He (and probably me since he seems pretty clueless) explain it to the Blue coach, give the ball to Blue OOB, and we move on. Afterward, partner and I, along with the camp staff, have a long discussion on how to officiate.

And please note, I'm not disputing the great and accurate discussions on how to correctly administer an accidental or inadvertant whistle. And I'm not taking the chickensh!t route by hiding behind "not-wanting-to-follow-the-rules-just-so-we-can-do-the-easy/right-thing-by-the-Blue-team-and-avoid-personal-pain-and-responsibility-in-the-process" that so many of you will automatically accuse me of...there's going to be pain regardless, anyway. I'm just not automatically assuming this is an accidental or inadvertant whistle.

I don't believe that he was ignored. It seems to me that people read it and didn't have anything to say about it. Personally, I didn't comment on his post because I agreed with it, and had nothing to add.

Heard something similar........oh, yeah.


I agree with your take, and if I understood correctly, Camron does also.

But that seems to be all of us.

Include me also.

I asked jar this question, and never got a response. I'll ask you too: What is your definition of an indavertant/accidental whistle, in the context of the rules? Surely it's a little more than the official sneezing and the whistle blowing as a result? What about the case play Nevada posted about the official being sure there was a TO request, but got it wrong and called the TO nonetheless? How does the committee consider that an accidental whistle, but the OP's play is not?

If this whole issue is about overruling a partner's call, remember the OP said:
The original question was about the official who made the call realized they blew it and made a call they should not have, so what does the crew do now? It has never been about correcting a partner's wrong call.

Accidental whistle: whistle blown/call made mistakenly which produces an undesirable result

Not the case here.

Why not?

So if the result is "desirable", then the whistle isn't accidental?

Who decides whether the result is "desirable?"

If an official blows the whistle to call backcourt; Then realizes it was the incorrect call, don't you get an inadvertant whistles ... ooops my bad - do over... using POI ?

In the case mentioned... If the score was not mentioned - would it have change the responses? Or if White was losing by a bunch?

If the official above - did not "reverse" the call; then we have a backcourt violation and Blue Basketball.

The team wound up with the ball which would have wound up with the ball anyway had the call not been made.

In a nutshell, correct.


The official who made the call, with the assistance of his partner, if necessary.

Do you have a rule or case to back that up?

That's a rhetorical question, because obviously there isn't one. You've been shown the specific rules and case plays backing up giving back to the team last in control, not the team that "should've gotten it".

You want to make a call directly contradicting the rules because you think it's "more fair", and people may not complain as much. I get that, and I used to think that way a long time ago. Most of the time you might get away with it. But if you work this game long enough, there will be that one time that someone will discover you are making calls not based on a lack of rules knowledge, but rather by making up rules, and that will hurt your advancement possibilities.

I've learned it is always better to stick with the rules, no matter how much complaining happens as a result.

Yep, that's the gist of the entire thread.

Would you change how you call the game in other areas based on the score? Would you make or not make certain travel calls based on the score? Would you start calling fouls on one end and stop calling fouls on the other end, based on the score?

The answer to these questions should be the same as the answer to your question.

First of all, potential complaints are not a factor in my ruling in this case. Secondly, I think potential for a complaint is not that great in the first place because I am skeptical about how many hs coaches can quote a rule about what to do in the event of an accidental whistle.

The key here, in my estimation, is whether it is absolutely necessary to declare that an accidental whistle has occurred. You guys apparently have issues about what I think an accidental whistle is, but the fact is that there is no specific definition for an accidental whistle.

Your partner made a call. Had he simply blown the whistle, then made no signal but merely stood there with "the deer in the headlights look," it would be difficult to justify giving the ball to blue.

Then explain the ruling in case play 5.8.3 Sit. E. The official didn't blow the whistle and not make a call, but actually made the call, granting the TO. Why is that considered an accidental whistle, <B>by rule</B>?

In this case, if the official is later convinced that there was no timeout request, granting a timeout is not in the best interest of the game. IOW, the accidental whistle produces an unfavorable result, and should be dealt with accordingly.

What about 5.8.3 Situation E a. ? The whistle was blown improperly. The timeout was granted, when it should not have been. Why is this not an accidental whistle? Is this not evidence that every whistle blown improperly is not an "accidental whistle."

Are there any rule definitions of "best interest of the game", "Improper whistle", or "unfavorable result"?

In 5.8.3. Sit E (a), there was a TO request. It was granted. Therefore it must be taken. It was improperly granted, but must be granted nonetheless.

In 5.8.3. Sit E (b), there was no TO request, therefore there was no TO to grant. Acoording to the case, they call that an accidental whistle.

So, there is apparently a difference between an improper whistle and an accidental whistle. In (a), you live with an "improper" whistle. In (b), after an accidental whistle you resume play using the POI rules. In the OP, there was also no call to make.

Did you ever take into account the rules committee might purposely be making it "unfair" to make sure officials don't do these things? You have the same arguments regarding the "blarge" - we should do something different outside the rules in order to make things "fair". But that isn't how the rules are written. It would seem "fair" in (a) to not allow the TO and use POI, but that's not how it is written. In (b) it seems fair to resume where it should've been, had the whistle not blown, but that's not how it's written. In the case of the dreaded "blarge", it would seem fair to allow only one call to stand, whether it's the primary official's call, the obvious call, etc., but that's not how the rule is written. I can probably think of "fairer" ways to handle correctable errors, but I'm limited to how the rules are written, not by how I think it should happen.

In each of these cases, the absolute <B>best</B> way to avoid making any of these rulings: never have a correctable error, and don't blow the whistle improperly or accidentally. :)

If your partner sees a crash during rebounding action, the ball is rolling loose, he blows his whistle, puts his fist in the air....then realizes 2 teammates slammed into each other, is this a bad call or an accidental whistle?

Or, how about this: A1 has the ball in the front court, A1's pass bounces off A2 and starts rolling towards the backcourt. A1 grabs the ball with one foot in the front court, the other foot in the air. A1 looks down, sees the line, and can't help but put the second foot on the line. The official sees that, blows the whistle and signals the backcourt violation. Except then the official notices the line A1 stepped on was a volleyball line in the front court, not the division line.

Bad call, or accidental whistle?

I vote for accidental whistle.

How about both, a bad call & IW... but seriously I'm following the procedure for an IW in both instances. Just hope I'm not the calling official :eek:

My point exactly.

In the OP, I choose to live with the improper whistle.

There is wiggle room in the wording regarding a blarge. If you want to reopen that, I'd be glad to contribute.

Try this one. I am trail, two whistle. Player fumbles the ball at the top to the key, then struggles to recover. This happens right in front of me. As the ball is rolling on the floor, partner, from the lead, with all the other traffic in between, whistles and signal a travel.

Did I almost puke? yes Did I stop the game, confer with partner, explain the traveling rule and ask for an accidental whistle declaration? no

Would you?

Change this one slightly. A1 secures the rebound. A2 crashes into him. Official sees the crash, whistles for a foul. A split second later, official realizes his mistake. A split second after that, A1 falls to the floor. What do you call here?

This one seems more closely related to my original situation. You have a fubar. By rule, you have to give it back to A as they had possession when the whistle stopped play. Who are you going to call the foul on? What can it be other than an accidental whistle?

And you would choose to go against the POI rule and case play.

There's only "wiggle room" in your mind, not in the rule. And no, it's pretty much a closed discussion for me. :)

First, are you 100% sure there was not a travel before the ball came loose? Are you 100% sure they did not see the play? If so, then:

- Confer with partner as to what their call was? Yes.
- Explain the traveling rule? No.
- Give my partner the information that the player did not control of the ball? Absolutely.
- Give them the opportunity to explain their call, or give them the chance to declare an accidental whistle rather than penalize a team that should not be penalized? Yep.
- Check to see who would've picked up the ball if the whistle had not blown? Nope.
- Tried to figure out what's fair? Nope.

Why wouldn't you, as a crew, get the call right if you are 100% sure the call was blown?

Ok, I'm officially done with this discussion. We obviously disagree with the spirit and intent of the POI rule involving accidental whistles. Maybe the committee will adopt the NCAA definition for additional clarity. Maybe it doesn't need any additional clarity. ;)