Two mistakes by the G'town/S. FL crew

[Nevadaref]

No, that is not the correct understanding of how the CE rule works.

Note the rule specifying the 2nd live ball time-line.

[Adam]

The only way this is correctable at any time is if the scorer had made the error and not put up the number of points indicated by the officials. That makes it a scorer's error.

[sseltser]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

No, that is not the correct understanding of how the CE rule works.

Note the rule specifying the 2nd live ball time-line.

I believe that NCref is claiming that this isn't a CE. Note how 2-13-2-b-3 specifically references the CE rule, while 2-13-2-b-1 does not. This tells me that 2-13-2-b-1, namely using video to determine if a shot is a 2 or 3, is not a CE. I'm still not aware of what, if any, is the time limit, if this is the case.

Additionally, this is an "error in judgment" which according to 2-12-1-e can not be a CE.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by sseltser

I believe that NCref is claiming that this isn't a CE. Note how 2-13-2-b-3 specifically references the CE rule, while 2-13-2-b-1 does not. This tells me that 2-13-2-b-1, namely using video to determine if a shot is a 2 or 3, is not a CE. I'm still not aware of what, if any, is the time limit, if this is the case.

Additionally, this is an "error in judgment" which according to 2-12-1-e can not be a CE.

2/3 pt shots do fall under Correctable Errors:
2.12.1e. Erroneously counting or canceling a score.
Note: In order for this to be a correctable error, the official must have erred in counting or canceling a successful try for goal according to a rule (i.e., after basket interference or goaltending, incorrectly counting or failing to cancel a score or counting a three-point goal instead of a two-point goal). A correctable error does not involve an error in judgment.

2/3 pt shots are not part of the excluded list:
2.13 Art. 7. The officials shall not use such available equipment for judgment calls such as:
a. Determine who committed a foul or whether a foul occurred. Exception:
A flagrant foul
b. Determine whether basket interference or goaltending occurred.
c. Determine whether a violation occurred.
d. Determine whether the ball was released before the sounding of the shotclock horn, except as in 2-13.3.b.

[NewNCref]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

No, that is not the correct understanding of how the CE rule works.

Note the rule specifying the 2nd live ball time-line.

I guess where I'm getting hung up is the part that says a correctable error is not an error in judgement, which would seem to suggest to me that the case you've mentioned is not in fact considered a correctable error.

[jalons]

Originally Posted by NewNCref

I guess where I'm getting hung up is the part that says a correctable error is not an error in judgement, which would seem to suggest to me that the case you've mentioned is not in fact considered a correctable error.

The NCAA rulebook has a section dealing specifically with the use of the monitor (2-13). The time frame for using the monitor is the same as that of the correctable error. This adds consistency for the officials. The play in question (2/3 point basket) is not a correctable error (NCAA 2-12).

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by NewNCref

I guess where I'm getting hung up is the part that says a correctable error is not an error in judgement, which would seem to suggest to me that the case you've mentioned is not in fact considered a correctable error.

Originally Posted by jalons

The NCAA rulebook has a section dealing specifically with the use of the monitor (2-13). The time frame for using the monitor is the same as that of the correctable error. This adds consistency for the officials. The play in question (2/3 point basket) is not a correctable error (NCAA 2-12).

Hmmm, I wonder if anyone posted that information: Two mistakes by the G'town/S. FL crew

[NewNCref]

Originally Posted by jalons

The NCAA rulebook has a section dealing specifically with the use of the monitor (2-13). The time frame for using the monitor is the same as that of the correctable error. This adds consistency for the officials. The play in question (2/3 point basket) is not a correctable error (NCAA 2-12).

I've looked all through 2-13, but I don't see any reference to a time frame for using the monitor, UNLESS what you're going to the monitor for is a correctable error.

And sorry BNR for saying again what you said you thought I was trying to say...

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by NewNCref

I've looked all through 2-13, but I don't see any reference to a time frame for using the monitor, UNLESS what you're going to the monitor for is a correctable error.

And sorry BNR for saying again what you said you thought I was trying to say...

The monitor is a tool for rectifying correctable error situations. Since 2/3 point shots fall under the CE rule, the use of the monitor still needs to fall within the time constraint parameters.

[jalons]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

The monitor is a tool for rectifying correctable error situations. Since 2/3 point shots fall under the CE rule, the use of the monitor still needs to fall within the time constraint parameters.

Yeah, what he said!

[NewNCref]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

The monitor is a tool for rectifying correctable error situations. Since 2/3 point shots fall under the CE rule, the use of the monitor still needs to fall within the time constraint parameters.

While I am, admittedly, a little skeptical of all this still, I can buy this explanation and live with it.

Plus, I'm getting on a plane headed for Florida in a few hours, so I can live with most anything. Now where'd I put that bottle opener...

[Tio]

Yep... The Statue of limitations ended when the ball was placed at the disposal of the FT shooter. I agree with Nevada... kicking a rule is indefensible. Imagine if this was a 1 point game and they changed from a 2 to a 3.... this would be getting a lot more press if that were the case.

I have seen the basket interference play where a defender goes up through the cylinder. This is a HARD play! Usually, the center and trail get surprised on this play (the call needs to be made by one of them). I'd be interested to see the C & T positioning and I bet you the C especially got disengaged with the play.

A similar play happened in the Pac-10 last year and was similarly called an Incorrect No Call.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by jalons

The play in question (2/3 point basket) is not a correctable error (NCAA 2-12).

I dispute the authenticity of the above statement as stringently as possible.

From the 2010 NCAA Case Book:

A.R. 30. A1 releases a try for goal at the expiration of time for the game.
The official rules the field goal to be a successful two-point goal.
Before an official goes to a courtside monitor to confirm the
status of the play, the coach from Team A requests a correctable
error on the grounds that the goal was counted erroneously and
three points should have been awarded.
RULING: When there is a reading of zeros and after making a call on
the playing court, the officials shall be required to use the courtside
monitor to ascertain whether the try for field goal was released before
or after the reading of zeros on the game clock when it is necessary to
determine the outcome of the game. The officials may use the courtside
monitor to determine whether a try for goal was a two- or threepoint
attempt. The officials shall notify the coaches of both teams of
their intention to use the courtside monitor for this purpose. When
the coach’s appeal is ruled to be incorrect, a 75-second timeout shall
be charged or a 30-second timeout when a 75-second timeout is not
available in games not involving the electronic-media timeout format.
In games involving the electronic-media timeout format, either a 60-
or 30-second timeout shall be charged to his or her team. When that
timeout exceeds the allotted number, an administrative technical foul
shall be assessed to the offending team.
(Rule 2-13.2.b.1 and .3 and 2-13.3.a)

[Adam]

"I strenuously object."

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

"I strenuously object."

Overruled.

Sit down, counselor.