2010 - 2011 Interps

[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.

[Zoochy]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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

I am in that line with all of you. I am quiet. I would just be repeating everything that has been stated.
Maybe I should speak up because I do work for the Department of Redundancy Department.

[Scrapper1]

Sorry to resurrect an old thread, but I did a lot of poking and prodding and got a friend of a friend to get in touch with somebody on the Rules Committee, regarding the correctable error interp. Here is the response that was given:

The Rules Committee does not believe an official not knowing or not properly applying a rule is the intent of the Rule 2.10. Generally speaking, the five correctable errors in Rule 2.10 involve correct rulings by officials in ruling the foul or an infraction such as basket interference. However an error occurs in the administration of the free throw(s) that result from the foul or the infraction (basket interference) is not scored correctly. Based on historical NFHS interpretations, a correctable error is NOT applicable when officials don't know the rule of fail to apply a rule properly.

[Nevadaref]

Thanks for the extra effort, Mr. Esteemed Colleague.

Of course, you know as well as I do that the response is about the most ludicrous thing that we've seen come out of the NFHS committee in the last 10 years.

An official not knowing or not properly applying a rule is EXACTLY why rule 2-10 exists. Otherwise there wouldn't be any correctable errors!

Of course, looking at some of the other interps, I'm not surprised.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Thanks for the extra effort, Mr. Esteemed Colleague.

Of course, you know as well as I do that the response is about the most ludicrous thing that we've seen come out of the NFHS committee in the last 10 years.

An official not knowing or not properly applying a rule is EXACTLY why rule 2-10 exists. Otherwise there wouldn't be any correctable errors!

Of course, looking at some of the other interps, I'm not surprised.

I disagree. It usually occurs not becasue an official doesn't know a rule but because they either have incorrect information from the scorer or don't get the information. It is not a question of them knowing/applying a rule.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I disagree. It usually occurs not becasue an official doesn't know a rule but because they either have incorrect information from the scorer or don't get the information. It is not a question of them knowing/applying a rule.

I completely agree. I have had two very obvious correctable error situations in my career and they were preventable if the table gave us the right information. Both I personally asked based on the foul total and was told it was one way when it was the other way. One we could not correct because the time frame had past. The other we caught in time but after the table realized they made a mistake.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

Sorry to resurrect an old thread.

Thanks Scrapper1. Why sorry? We've all been waiting with bated breath for this explanation. I've lost a lot of sleep over it. Much thanks for the followup.

In my humble opinion, this NFHS interpretation of a NFHS interpretation is the male version of a cowpie.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

An official not knowing or not properly applying a rule is EXACTLY why rule 2-10 exists.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I disagree. It usually occurs not becasue an official doesn't know a rule but because they either have incorrect information from the scorer or don't get the information.

In either case, Camron, the officials inadvertently set aside a rule. Whether they knew the rule but didn't get the correct info, or they forgot that you shoot free throws at 7 fouls, they "inadvertently set aside a rule", which resulted in one of the 5 infamous errors.

So while I agree with you that Nevada overstated the case a bit, I think he's correct in saying that not applying the rule correctly (which is what happened in the interp) is EXACTLY why 2-10 exists.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Of course, you know as well as I do that the response is about the most ludicrous thing that we've seen come out of the NFHS committee in the last 10 years.

It's tied for first place.