When does a 52-51 victory go into the books as a 59-57 overtime loss?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Can you clarify exactly what took place, even though you were not the R?

At the end of regulation, the running score in the book was 51-51. When the details were added up, they totaled 52. The scorer confirmed that she "filled in the circle" for a FT, but didn't put it in the running totals.

The visitors book was kept by a kid (looked like a freshman) at the end of the bench, and was a mess -- not much use in reconciling).

The totalling the details didn't happen (or conclude) until about 1 minute into OT. The scorekeeper blames the late totals and the missed score on a "member of the media" who was yapping at the table near the end of the game. (Maybe, and this is speculation, he was yapping about the score.)

[fiasco]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

F
So it seems that what was done during the extra period was that the scoreboard and the visiting book were changed to reflect what was already in the home/official book. If that is the case, and the official book was NOT changed at that point, then I would say that the game should have been terminated at that point.

Bzzzzzzzzt....


5-7-4

Case book clarifies that, whether or not the score is changed or not changed, once the ball becomes live you have to play out the extra period.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by fiasco

Bzzzzzzzzt....


5-7-4

Case book clarifies that, whether or not the score is changed or not changed, once the ball becomes live you have to play out the extra period.

Careful, partner, neither one of those plays involves the book correctly having one team leading at the end of regulation as Nevada was assuming (incorrectly it turns out) happened in Bob's game.

Personally, in Nevada's hypothetical, I'd be inclined to finish the overtime and let the state sort out the results later.

[jdw3018]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Personally, in Nevada's hypothetical, I'd be inclined to finish the overtime and let the state sort out the results later.

Agreed. I definitely see Nevada's point, and I even think I lean toward agreeing, but I'd be happy to finish the OT and allow the teams to work it out with the state if the results were different.

[fiasco]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Careful, partner, neither one of those plays involves the book correctly having one team leading at the end of regulation as Nevada was assuming (incorrectly it turns out) happened in Bob's game.

Personally, in Nevada's hypothetical, I'd be inclined to finish the overtime and let the state sort out the results later.

It seems to me that the intent of the rule is pretty clear. Once you start overtime, you play overtime. If anything, this prevents a scorekeeper from going in and adding a point and saying "actually, the book was right at the end of regulation."

I'm playing on.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

From reading the article, I'm going to disagree, but I'll ask Bob for clarification since it was his game.


Bob, from the article it seems that the home book had the proper number of points for the home team in regulation, namely 52. I assume that this was the official book, and thus the official score. The fact that the scoreboard and the visiting book incorrectly displayed 51 shouldn't matter, right?
So it seems that what was done during the extra period was that the scoreboard and the visiting book were changed to reflect what was already in the home/official book. If that is the case, and the official book was NOT changed at that point, then I would say that the game should have been terminated at that point. This is different from changing the official book at some point in OT, which would cause the game to continue. In your case, had I been the R, I would have declared the home team the winner in regulation and filed a report with the state association/league.

Can you clarify exactly what took place, even though you were not the R?

Isn't the running score up top the "official" score? It was incorrect at the end of regulation. It was reconciled during the OT period.

[asdf]

Common sense application of 5-7-4 is that you continue with the overtime.

Official scorer gets fired shortly afterwards......

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by jdw3018

.
On a rules note, if more than one player was involved in an unsporting action, shouldn't they have assessed multiple technical fouls? And, is there any provision that would allow a team technical for unsporting behavior?

Called correctly. See the RULING in case book play 10.4.4SitB. If similar multiple infractions occur at approximately the same time, you charge one team "T" and an indirect "T" to the head coach. That is one situation where you can have an indirect "T" assessed along with a team "T".

[jdw3018]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Called correctly. See the RULING in case book play 10.4.4SitB. If similar multiple infractions occur at approximately the same time, you charge one team "T" and an indirect "T" to the head coach. That is one situation where you can have an indirect "T" assessed along with a team "T".

Thanks for the cite, JR.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by fiasco

It seems to me that the intent of the rule is pretty clear. Once you start overtime, you play overtime. If anything, this prevents Mark Padgett from going in and adding a point and saying "actually, the book was right at the end of regulation."

Fixed it for you (in red).