2010 - 2011 Interps

[Scrapper1]

A fellow official who I respect a lot has voiced the opinion that allowing the catch in this situation is analogous to missing a travel. They just missed the call, so it's not correctable.

I don't think I agree with that, because the travel is a judgment about where the ball was caught, or which foot is the pivot. In the NFHS interp, there is no judgment. Everyone agrees the ball was caught and everyone agrees that the clock showed .3 seconds.

So I disagree, but at least there is one voice out there who doesn't think the ruling is completely wrong.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

The example of the FTs is not relevant because the FTs are merited regardless of the time showing on the clock.

I think the example is relevant. It's exactly the same. The rule was set aside incorrectly. In one case, a penalty was not assessed; in the other, a goal was incorrectly counted.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

A fellow official who I respect a lot has voiced the opinion that allowing the catch in this situation is analogous to missing a travel. They just missed the call, so it's not correctable.

I don't think I agree with that, because the travel is a judgment about where the ball was caught, or which foot is the pivot. In the NFHS interp, there is no judgment. Everyone agrees the ball was caught and everyone agrees that the clock showed .3 seconds.

It is not clear in the NFHS situation that the officials knew there was 0.3 on the clock. The sit. only states that 0.3 was on the clock. But, let's assume they did know.


Perhaps the 0.3 rule is to be treated not as a scoring rule but as a timing rule.....not that they didn't or didn't make the basket but that time must have, by this rule, expired before the shot was released. That actually is the historical basis for this rule.

In the case of a running clock play, you wouldn't go back and change your mind on whether a shot was nor was not before the horn after you count it, go to intermission, and return.

So, not observing the 0.3 rule is not counting the score incorrectly but judging the end of the period incorrectly...a timing mistake....not a correctable error.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

So, not observing the 0.3 rule is not counting the score incorrectly but judging the end of the period incorrectly...a timing mistake....not a correctable error.

This is a stretch, and not a convincing one at all. But I can't concentrate to give a good reason why, because I'm watching the ALCS at the moment. I'll check in again tomorrow.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

This is a stretch, and not a convincing one at all. But I can't concentrate to give a good reason why, because I'm watching the ALCS at the moment. I'll check in again tomorrow.

Yeah, baseball puts me to sleep too.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

It is not clear in the NFHS situation that the officials knew there was 0.3 on the clock. The sit. only states that 0.3 was on the clock. But, let's assume they did know.


Perhaps the 0.3 rule is to be treated not as a scoring rule but as a timing rule.....not that they didn't or didn't make the basket but that time must have, by this rule, expired before the shot was released. That actually is the historical basis for this rule.

In the case of a running clock play, you wouldn't go back and change your mind on whether a shot was nor was not before the horn after you count it, go to intermission, and return.

So, not observing the 0.3 rule is not counting the score incorrectly but judging the end of the period incorrectly...a timing mistake....not a correctable error.

You certainly may. There is even a case book play in which the referee thinks that the goal was not scored, but the umpire did count it at the end of the game and they left the visual confines. The ruling is that it is too late to correct this error, but it certainly is a CE.


2.2.4 SITUATION C: Team B leads by a point with seconds remaining in the
fourth quarter. A1 releases the ball on a try, but the noise level makes it difficult
for the covering official (umpire) to hear the horn. The umpire signals a successful
goal. The referee definitely hears the horn before A1 releases the ball, but does
not realize the umpire counted the goal. The officials leave the visual confines of
the playing area and are not aware of the controversy until the scorer comes to
the officials’ dressing room. RULING: Even though the referee could have canceled
the score if the officials had conferred before leaving, once the officials
leave the visual confines of the playing area, the final score is official and no
change can be made. In situations such as this, it is imperative that officials communicate
with each other and that they do not leave until any problem regarding
scoring or timing has been resolved.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

A fellow official who I respect a lot has voiced the opinion that allowing the catch in this situation is analogous to missing a travel. They just missed the call, so it's not correctable.

What if the referee knew that there was 0.3 seconds on the clock and also observed and judged that the ball was indeed caught before the try was attempted, but he incorrectly thought that the rule was "less than 0.3 seconds" not "0.3 seconds or less" and so misapplied the rule to a situation which he properly observed?
That would be akin to seeing the traveling violation and calling it, but then enforcing the wrong penalty (perhaps awarding the ball OOB to the wrong team or counting a goal anyway after the travel because the player was fouled prior to the travel).
Your respected official's rationale does not work in this case.
It is certainly possible that the referee/umpire made the properly call, but improperly enforced the rule on the court.

[tjones1]

What if A1 releases a try and while still the in air runs over B1 committing a player-control foul... the official calls the PC; however, he counts the goal.

The official certainly misapplied the rule so can it not be corrected even if caught within the time limit?

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by tjones1

What if A1 releases a try and while still the in air runs over B1 committing a player-control foul... the official calls the PC; however, he counts the goal.

The official certainly misapplied the rule so can it not be corrected even if caught within the time limit?

Excellent example.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by tjones1

What if A1 releases a try and while still the in air runs over B1 committing a player-control foul... the official calls the PC; however, he counts the goal. The official certainly misapplied the rule so can it not be corrected even if caught within the time limit?

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Excellent example.

What? Isn't this an example of "erroneously counting or canceling a score" that can be corrected within the correctable error time limits? Color me confused.

[Nevadaref]

Yes, Billy, both of us are saying that it is a CE for the reason that you state and may be corrected.

Please carefully reread the wording "can it not be corrected [?]."

Both of us are arguing against the new interp ruling.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Both of us are saying that it is a CE for the reason that you state and may be corrected. Both of us are arguing against the new interp ruling.

Why are there so few of us arguing such? There should be a line of us all the way around the block.