Did you even read post #6?

And really? How do you propose to call a foul without a whistle in this situation?
Here you're just wrong. He absolutely was discussing post #6 the entire time; even if others (including me) didn't quite realize it. As I said, you guys were arguing past each other.
2-10 lists the errors that may be corrected and the time frame in which such correction must be made. No where is a travel listed in that, so I'd say the rules in fact do not allow you to go back and call a travel from several plays before.

The same way as in any other situation.

Sorry, but you are wrong. Here he is directly quoting the situation in which the technical foul is called on the thrower and he said the ball is "dead on the whistle."

http://forum.officiating.com/714165-post24.html

That has nothing to do with this play. There was no error. The official just took longer than normal to call the violation after it occurred.

I've never called a foul during action without a whistle, so you'll have to enlighten me.


Yeah, he said it was dead on the whistle, which I take (knowing how well he knows the rules) as a mis-speak rather than an error in rules knowledge. But reading it with the understanding that he was talking about the TF mentioned in post #6, it's all the more clear. He was assuming the TF that was being discussed was (a) after the basket and (b) on the team who had just been screwed by the officials' inability to pay attention.

It's the only place that talks about the ability to fix a mistake, and that's exactly what a missed travel call is. I wouldn't say the rules allow for fixing that error; even though the precise limit on "when is too late" isn't really specified.

I'm obviously giving Jurassic more benefit of the doubt than you are; but he's earned it on this board quite frankly.

Redux
 

So I posit that everybody has become confused about who is talking about what.

Let me see if I can resolve this.

Cobra is saying that he can go back and call a foul from the start of the first half if he realizes it was a foul with 5 seconds left in the game. If so all subsequent action happened during a dead ball since the foul made the ball dead. No one agrees with him.

JR is saying that if the ball is erroneously inbounded then it has become live. Only Cobra disagrees on this point.

Camron is saying that if right after the ball is inbounded the V coach says something to merit a technical and he decides to call it that the ball is dead when the coach says it even if he drops his whistle and makes the call a second or two later. The foul made the ball dead and the whistle was just making it official. It's not clear to me if JR agrees or not.

He further envisions that in some early numbered post this is what was happening here. JR disagrees that the early numbered post describes that situation.

JR is saying that if the three is shot and then the official decides to call a technical that the ball was not dead when shot and the three counts. It's not clear to me if Camron agrees or not.

Does this capture everyone's viewpoint or is there more?
________
Vapir no2 vaporizer

Pretty good summary! The only change would be that JR is saying that if the 3 point shot is MADE and THEN the official decides to call the T, you don't take the 3 points off the board.

+1

SNAQ I have called MANY fouls with out a whistle. However, it was in my capacity as an assistant coach (Yell: "Hold Up. White/Blue out.) a player in a pick up game (You got it if you want it) or as a fan (WOW, there should have been a foul there)
So as you can see, it IS possible to call a foul without a whistle!!:D

Like the calls I make from my living room? Now I understand.

1) Yes, I was assuming that because that was the only whistle that was ever blown in post #6. I can't seriously consider as being logical that you can have a technical foul occur right after a throw-in, a team then goes up court and takes a 3-pointer and makes it, and after the made 3-pointer there's an argument resulting in a whistle for a technical foul..... and there's still hasn't been a whistle ever been blown for the original technical foul that occurred right after the throw-in ended. But we're supposed to think the ball was dead through all that. Maybe it's just me, but I just can't buy the logic on that one.

2) There's no precise time limit set between a foul or violation occuring and the whistle for that foul or violation but there is common sense plus an understanding of what is usually expected from us as officials. A patient whistle is good sometimes..... not all the time..... but if you see a foul or violation occur and you don't blow your whistle for that foul or violation within about 2 or 3 seconds max, you might as well let it go because the play is now usually long gone. Hell, the play might be half the court away in that 2 or 3 seconds. And if you want to wait for...gasp...more than 5 seconds to blow your whistle after a foul or violation occured, well, all I can say is good luck to in your new job as one of chseagle's assistants. There's real life out there. And that is why I can't really take any of Cobra's arguments seriously.

Jmo fwiw....

I'm on board with post #7

Just yell for them to stop or something. The point is that sounding the whistle is not required by rule in order to call a foul.

Yes, that makes sense. But it was not a single incident. It is possible to have something come out wrong in a post. But when it is happening multiple times then it is more of a rules knowledge problem than a rules explaining problem.

When an official decides to call a foul or sounds the whistle has no bearing on when the ball becomes dead. The ball becomes dead when the foul occurs.


All I have said is that there is time limit under the rules for calling fouls and violations. Other people agree with this. Other people disagree but have not provided a rules citation.


The ball would become live when it is at the disposal of the thrower, not when inbounded. But if there a foul before it is at his disposal then the ball would remain dead.

Cameron came up with his own situation which involved a technical foul being called on the thrower.

Cameron does not agree with that. The ball becomes or remains dead when the foul occurs. The fact that it took the official a couple of seconds to call it does not change anything.

I never said that officials should be going back and calling fouls which occurred earlier. All I said is that there are no rules against doing so.

If you want to go on thinking JR doesn't know the fundamentals based on a misunderstanding of which play was being discussed, go ahead and make that mistake. I really don't care. I personally wouldn't hang my hat on that, but you're free to.

If you want to think he's an a$$ for the way he's discussed this with you, go ahead. You won't be alone, and he won't really care.

Grin.

You just can't make something like this up, folks. :D

And I ain't gonna argue with him either.

I'm just wondering why Cobra won't address the correlation between the original argument and the play I put out there about a Tech on the defense's coach during a fast break.

I have to agree with his take, if you call a T on the offense for something they did right before the shooter releases his shot. The shot doesn't count, even if your whistle doesn't sound until the shot is in the air. Same as if A2 is called for an TC foul just prior to the shot.

As Camron noted, the case play is clear on what to do if the defensive coach (or player) pops off here. When I thought JR was discussing Camron's T on team B, I asked this very same question.