How would you prove that B2 knew it was a dead ball? From a player's perspective its a live ball, score with it!

Is intent part of the rule?

I would say it is. You used the word purposely in your original question.

You may say it is, but the rule book disagrees. 10-3-3
dunk, or attempt to dunk, a dead ball.

So - again - let me see if I have this right (according to your interp)...

Team A is late coming out of timeout...Officials mistakenly allow team B to throw ball in...team B hits a 3 pointer...team A goes down and hits their own 3 pointer...team B comes back and turns ball over...team A goes down and scores 2...team B calls a timeout...Coach A then says "Hey wait a minute! That throw in should have been ours!"

You are sure - right down to your toes - that B did it on purpose...so you will now cancel A's 5 points, B's 3 points, call a T on the B Coach, administer the two shots and give A the ball at mid-court opposite for a throw in????

Do you put time back on the clock?

I'm familiar with the rule. I'm also familiar with the passage about intent and purpose of the rules. I also wouldn't call the T if the player dunked immediately after being called for traveling, perhaps thinking the whistle indicated a foul.

The intent of the rule committee is obviously that a throwin is not correctable once it's complete, yet some are wanting to use the technical foul rule to, essentially, override that intent.

Cobra - I would love to read your thoughts on my post #105.

I personally do not favor the technical call. As someone said earlier, (you, I think) I would have a hard time calling a technical for this if I handed the player the ball. But if the call was made, I agree with the theory that the act of deception causes the ball to be dead at that point.

I agree in theory, but there is a practical time limit to how late you can make this call. At best, you could sell it if you hit the whistle with the ball in the air. Any time after that, though, and you are really stretching the rule. I'd say, again, about the same time it's too late to go back and get that travel is when it's too late to go back and get the T.

I agree with that, too. But if it's soon enough to make the T call, it's soon enough to cancel the shot.

Not at all. The point was that a foul (ANY FOUL) that occurs before a shot kills the shot....the rest of the situation is irrelevant. The timing of the whistle doesn't matter....only the timing of the foul. The case play about the throwin is irrelevant...different situation.

Let's change the scenario....wrong team has the ball for a throw in. They throw it into A3. A1 calls you an MF just before A3 shoots the ball. You don't sound the whistle until after the release. Does the shot count or not? THAT is exactly the same as the situation we're talking about.

I've already offered this situation to show the same thing. You're right, if you think quickly enough to call the T here, it needs to be called quickly. I'd no more reach back and grab this T than I would reach back and grab a travel two passes before the shot attempt.

IMO, waiting until after the basket is made is too late, practically speaking, to call the T for an act that occurred during the throw-in.

I used the word purposely to describe the action, not whether the player had knowledge of whether the ball was dead.

My point is, if you use the theory that you can "go back" and issue the T retroactively, you then must use all of the appropriate rules and penalize everything accordingly. And I assume you'll have fun explaining to to B's coach why they now have 2 T's, since the dunk happened during a dead ball.

7.5.2 Sit B covers the play in question exactly. The officials screwed up and allowed the wrong team to inbound the ball, so there is nothing that can be done once the throw-in is completed. It would be nice to find some way to mitigate the officials' screw up and go back in time to penalize someone else, but I have yet to see anyone post a rule or case that allows us to go back in time and penalize an act from a previous play. Once the throw-in is completed, the action that warranted the T was a previous play.

Granted, this may be an extreme example, but let's say you called a foul against team A with a couple of seconds left that put team B up 1 after the FT's. As the ball is being inbounded, team A's coach says something to you in Italian right before A1 brings the ball up and lauches a shot that goes in at the buzzer. As you count the basket, the scorekeeper (timer?) tells you that the coach just called your mother many nasty names in Italian. Obviously unsporting, but you didn't get it called in time. So you decide to retroactively call the T. Would you wipe out the basket for A, since the action that warranted the T happened before the basket, thus making the entire play a dead ball situation? Since that leaves team B up 1, the game is now over with team B winning?

I've never seen a dunk that wasn't done purposely.

I do not believe it is the intent of this rule to penalize a player who could not be reasonably expected to know the ball is dead. This would apply in this case, or if there was excessive noise making it hard to hear the whistle, or anything in between.


7.5.2 B deals with determining the throw-in spot. :confused:


You're right. That is an extreme example.

Proposed rule: If a technical foul requires a translator, it shall not be called.

No it is NOT the same...in the situation we are talking about - way back on page 1, post #6 - the officials did not know they had screwed up until it was too late - by RULE - to correct it.

By your logic - team B throws it in and scores. Team A then scores. Team B scores again. Team A scores again and then calls timeout - at which point you realize it should have been A's ball for the throw-in, B did it purposely, so you wipe out all the points and assess the T because none of those were live balls since the "foul" kept them all from becoming live.

Absolutely ridiculous.

Right, there has to be a practical limit on just how late this call can be made.

And that practical limit is stated quite clearly - once the throw-in ends, it is too late.

You want to call the T because you think the Coach had them do it on purpose - fine. I am all for that...but the 3 points stays on the board because that is a result of our screw-up and cannot be fixed once the throw-in ends.

Wasn't there a ruling once on 6 players in the game that might be illustrative? Indicating that all points scored must count, in spite of the fact that the T was "committed" prior to the try.

The only thing it is too late to correct is the throw in...that is it. The case play is addressing nothing more than that. The case play doesn't preclude penalizing unsporting fouls. It doesn't consider possible unsportsmanlike behavior. The subsequent shot has NOTHING to do with the throwin error. That shot is a completely independent action and is not tied to other actions that precede it.

The primary objection by Jurrassic and others is that the shot counts because the ball is not dead until you actually make the call. Anyone who asserts that is simply ignoring several rules, cases, and even the rules fundamentals.

IF you choose to call a foul (personal or T) for whatever reason, the ball is dead at the point of the infraction that draws the foul (normal exceptions noted). The rules are absolutely clear on that point...and there are several case plays that back that up.

Calling a foul on an action that occurred before the shot is not correcting the throwin, it is calling a foul.

Camron, answers please. Note that post #6 that you responded to stated that there was NO whistle made by any official until AFTER the 3-point shot was made.

No, that T is specifically applied when discovered, not when it occurs....because you have no idea WHEN the 6th player entered.

How can this case play...10.1.8....be applicable when it states in the COMMENT-"This procedure shall NOT be used in any other throw-in situation in which a mistake allows the wrong team to inbound the ball."

Exactly. The case we're talking about is NOT that exact situation. We're not talking about a mistake but unsportsmanlike behavior. We're not using that procedure at all. We're calling a T for unsportsmanlike behavior and penalizing it according to normal rules.

You keep trying to distort the play to make it fit your argument so you won't be wrong.

Answer ONE question....if you dare. If A2 commits a foul before A3 releases the shot, is the ball dead or not? Once you answer that honestly, the debate is over.

Suppose A2 commits a technical foul before A3 releases the shot. Suppose for example he vulgarly swears in his non-English mother tongue at the official. Now suppose that 4 minutes later the ball becomes dead and the official asks another official what the term means and that official explains it. Are you suggesting the ball was dead for that shot and for all of the subsequent 4 minutes?

I'm guessing that the answer is no because you don't believe you can go back and get the technical? If the answer is yes, please explain what the limits would be.
If the answer is no, then would it be fair to characterize your difference simply as to how far back you can go to penalize the action. Or is there something more fundamental you are arguing?
________
Cannabis seeds

Why do people insist on being silly. No one ever goes back and makes a call for something that happened several plays ago.

The premise for the discussion is that the action is worthy of a technical foul (whether it is or not is a different debate). The events are back-to-back and the it takes a moment for the official to process the sequence of events and decide what just happened and whether they're going to do anything about it. We're talking about a time frame of a few seconds here, not several passes later.

How many people see a bump or some other contact and have a whistle exactly in time with the contact? How many people hear a T-worthy profanity and have a whistle exactly in time with the words coming out of the offender's mouth? No one. Anyone that makes any argument about the timing of the whistle for a foul (even a T) relative to the release is in fairyland.

But you're the one using this case play for inspiration on this call, right?

I don't think I ever cited that play as my inspiration.

My inspiration is that the play was deliberate and not within the spirit of the game. As such, it should be a T. Then, everything else is based on 6-7-* and related cases as to when the ball is dead.

1) No, I'm just using the play we're supposed to be discussing....the one described in post #6 of this thread. I'm answering that post solely. Are you?

2) Yes the ball is dead in that situation at once by rule. And I have never said anything to the contrary. Well, except if someone tries to tell me that there were 3 passes and a shot from the time the foul occured and the whistle was blown. That would be kinda ridiculous, wouldn't it? But can you point me to where in post #6 anything like that actually happened? Was there ever a whistle blown for the technical foul that you so desperately want to call on the team that wrongfully took the throw-in? You keep saying the 3-point basket can't be counted because the ball became dead but when did the ball actually become dead? According to post #6, the only whistle that was blown was when the other coach was given a "T" AFTER the 3-pointer was made. You keep trying to distort the actual play described in post #6 to make it fit your argument so you won't be wrong.

I missed the part that it was the other coach that got the T that stopped play.
I'm changing my vote to: The shot counts because it's now too late to call the T the perceived act of deception. If they did it, they shouldn't have done it, but they got away with it.

Then when did the technical foul occur in post #6? I can't find one ever being called on the team that wrongfully took the throw-in. You keep insisting the ball was dead in post #6 before the shot but what made it dead?

You made up a completely different situation than the one that was described in post #6 and you're answering questions as per your situation, not the one described in post #6.

I have no problem with someone saying they could have called a unsporting technical foul on the team who wrongfully took the throw-in. All unsporting "T"s are a judgment call, and even if I disagree with your decision to call one in that situation that doesn't mean that the rules don't justify that call. And I don't have a problem with someone saying they called that unsporting "T" just before the 3-point shot was in the air but they didn't put air into their whistle until the shot was gone. But please don't blow smoke up my azz and try and tell me that you or anyone else can call a "T" on a team before one of their players shot, and then you can wait until the shot went in and there was a subsequent argument with a coach before you decided to blow the whistle for your unsporting "T" from before the shot. That's hardly believable.

Post #6: "Offical gives player the ball and he throws it in and his teammate makes an uncontested 3. As soon as the V team completed the throw-in V coach is in officials ear telling him it is not correctable"

That statement by the coach, which is what I'm basing the T on, is after the ball is inbounds and before the shot is released.

I was not addressing anything in post 6 after the the initial events (the throw-in, statement by coach V, and shot). I stated that, at that very point, we'd have a T on team V. Perhaps that wasn't clear. What the H coach did to earn the T after that point a completely different issue.

Whether it is T'able or not is not the question, that is the assumption I injected. What is not being suggested is what could be done once coach H was complaining and got the T....way too late then. The point we're debating is whistle vs. infraction vs. release as it applies to counting the shot...implying they (decision/whistle/shot) are fairly close together...and that order doesn't matter, only the order of the infraction vs. shot.

You've just agreed that, regarding a foul committed before by team A before the release, "the ball is dead in that situation at once by rule".

Unless you're changing your story, your contradicting yourself now. You previously said that

"If you haven't decided to call the "T" or had not blown your whistle before the ball left the shooter's hands on the 3-point attempt, you have no rules justication that I know of to then cancel the 3-point basket if it goes. The ball is live until the try is made or missed."

In one, you agree that the foul makes the ball dead by rule where, in the other, you said that if you hadn't blown whistle before the release, the shot had to count.

Post 9.

Here you're quoting it and saying it's close enough for you, in spite of the fact that the case play itself says it only applies to the exact situation presented.

Yup, and the <font color = red>assumption</font> that you injected is NOT what we've been discussing. It's a completely different situation with a completely different answer than post #6. In post #6, there was NO technical foul called until after the 3-pointer was made, and then that "T" was called on the opposing coach.

And I'm going around and around repeating that. Time for me to say Hasta La Vista.

Me, too...this is ridiculous. He doesn't get it and never will. (shrug)

No! No one is discussing post number 6!!!! How many times do we have to go over it? We are talking about a different situation in which a technical foul occurs and then it takes the official longer than normal to call it. You said some stupid stuff and you know it, stop trying to hide behind post #6.

Some of us thought we were. And at least one of us misread it, which changes everything as far as I'm concerned.

When does this foul occur? Just having 6 players does not make the ball dead.

Of course it isn't a foul. Do you call technical fouls on a dunk ending at the end of the period when the horn goes off .1 seconds before the dunk? What is there is a foul by the offense which causes the ball to become dead .1 seconds before there is a dunk? What if the player commits basket interference while grabbing the ball and dunks it on the way down?

That is way to long to go back and call a foul. In the play being discussed it is a couple of seconds later not 4 minutes. But if the official did call the foul it would be correct under the rules as there is no set amount of time that the foul must be called in.

That is the time limit to correct the throw in. There is no limit under the rules for calling fouls.

If the official calls the foul then yes, the ball was dead when the foul occurred. The clock would have to be rest, if the officials know the time, as it should have never started.


Ok, not a big deal. Jurassic Referee said things which go against the rules in 5 separate posts about the play where the foul was called several seconds after it occurred. But now he just ignores the fact that that play even exists. If someone says "it's not too late to call the technical foul" he will say "there is no technical foul in post #6."

The officials can correct, with definite knowledge, an obvious error by the timer. In this play, the official gave the ball to the wrong team, the throw-in was complete. I assume this means the signal was given and the clock was properly started. If the official does decide at this point to call a T for devious behavior, a call which gets harder and harder for me to swallow, there is no obvious error by the timer to correct.

Actually, they are - you might want to go back and re-read the entire thread. The entire discussion is based on the situation described in post #6 and Cam's assertion that a T should have been called based on coach V's statement after the fact and any intervening action canceled.

The clock can also be corrected when it malfunctions or is not started or stopped properly.

The timer did his job and started the clock when signaled to do so, but just because the official signals the clock to start does not mean that it started properly. Like if 3 free throws are awarded and the official signals for the clock to start after the second free throw....timer did not error as he was signaled to start the clock, yet the time may be corrected as the clock was not started properly. It is the same idea on the play being discussed.

Actually, it isn't. Starting the clock after the second of three free throws is an error, whether it was signaled or not. Starting the clock after a throw-in, even if it is soon to be followed by a questionable technical foul call, is not.

Can you have a throw-in while the ball is dead?

Yes, I was discussing 6 with a modification...the point that the T should have been called when coach V said what he said and if the official wasn't quick enough to sound the whistle before the release, but just after, the T still occurred before the release and the ball was dead.

The point I was making that Jurassic steadfastly refused to budge on is that the officials whistle doesn't have to beat the release to kill the shot. And he eventually came around to admitting that.

Not once have I suggested doing anything any later as others keep trying to claim I'm saying. I've tried to make that clear on several posts.

Over and over, I've said I'm talking about a timing race between the whistle for T vs. the shot....which, for anyone that actually read the posts, should have been obvious. I used terms like "moment", "one or two seconds", etc. Every example play I presented to demonstrate my point was a bang-bang-bang play where the infraction under question, the shot, and the whistle were one right after the other.

Once you've moved on and hit the point where coach H (in the original #6) got the T, it is definitely too late to go back and do anything...I've NEVER said otherwise.

Um no, JR refused to budge on your post #9 which was direct answer to post #6. I don't agree with your response in that post, especially your trying to use a case play that isn't applicable. You're the one that then went off on a tangent, not me.

Cobra, right there is all that I need to know about you and your rules knowledge. According to you, the foul occured when the wrong thrower stepped out of bounds. The official then wrongfully administered the throw-in. The throw-in ended and a team went down and shot the 3-pointer. The shot was good. After the made shot, a coach argued and got a "T". During the time between the player stepping out of bounds for the throw-in and the technical foul being called after the made 3-pointer, there was no whistle. Aamof I still can't find in post #6 where anybody EVER blew a whistle for the technical foul on the thrower. But you still insist that the ball was dead by rule all through that lengthy time interval.

The throw-in never happened according to you.

I'm kinda wondering why the other coach would get upset and get the T" after the made 3-pointer once you told him the throw-in never happened, the 3-pointer was no good and he was getting 2 free throws and the ball. You'd think he'd be kinda happy about that rather than being pissed off, wouldn't you?

As I said, that's all I need to know about you and your rules knowledge.

Yo Camron, your thoughts on this? Seriously.

Look, the fact is JR was talking about Post #6. You were discussing post #6 plus Camron's wrinkle.
You were talking past each other. The sooner you guys realize this the sooner you can go back to whatever it was you were doing.

Do you even realize the fact that you are contradicting yourself???

That is way too long - BUT there is no time limit.

Good grief.

No, in post 9, I said " The fact that the coach said something the moment it was inbounds indicates they did it on purpose. That is an unsporting T."

That was to indicate the foul occurred the moment the coach said it and was called right then. It was not a direct answer to #6 as if it were tagged on the end of everything in #6. You claimed the whistle had to sound before the release...and it doesn't.

No argument here Cam. As I've before, if it's reasonably prompt - all occurs within a second or two - we can sell it pretty effectively, and I think that most of us agree that anything much beyond that is going to be too late.

My concerns with this specific situation are:

1. The officials really screwed the pooch on this one. It's their job to know which team gets the ball after the TO, and this is doubly important in a close game down the stretch. If they'd paid attention and done their job correctly, the situation never would have occurred.

2. Is a T justified in this situation? Certainly the comment by coach V is suspicious, but IMHO it is not enough in and of itself to justify a T. What was the context? Maybe he just realized at the last second his team was mistakenly given the ball for throw-in. You'd think that if it was a deliberate act, he'd be smart enough to not overtly attract attention to it....playing dumb would be a much smarter approach. I think it's one of those HTBT situations.......

3. Ambiguities and outright contradictions within the NFHS rules and interpretations. There's plenty of parallels within the rules that place a time limit on when a penalty can be assessed - for example, an illegal sub becomes a player once the ball becomes live and you can no longer penalize. Does anything similar apply here? How does the official wrongly giving the ball to a thrower from the wrong team affect it? Does it fall into the "when occurred" or "when discovered" category?

A key issue in this discussion is "did the ball become live?" Rule 6-1-2-b says it becomes live on a throw-in, when it is at the disposal of the thrower. If we proceed to throw-in administration, 7-6-2 says "The throw-in starts when the ball is at the disposal of a player of the team entitled to the throw-in." At face value, you'd expect that this means the ball isn't live until both the above conditions are satisfied, but we have a case play that directly contradicts that, saying that we can't correct giving the ball to the wrong team for throw-in once the throw in ends. Yes, the specific case involves an AP situation, but it doesn't specifically limit itself to that situation as some case interps clearly do, implying that it would be valid for any wrong team throw-in administration error by the official - this is further supported by the fact giving the ball to the wrong team for throw-in is not included in the list of correctable errors specified by rule. How can a throw in end if according to 7-6-2 it never started? In the case of a made basket it's clear the ball doesn't become live until it's at the disposal of the team entitled to the throw-in, but from the interp it appears that on a throw-in administered by an official that's not necessarily the case, and at least some of the time the ball becomes live when given to the thrower, whether they're from the correct team or not. Like I said, ambiguous and contradictory.....a little consistency would be nice......

I wouldn't be talking if I were you. Earlier you said the ball becomes dead on the whistle when a foul is called. Even if I'm wrong on this, at least it is a complicated situation. You don't even know the fundamentals.

I never said that, that is just the situation being discussed.

No technical foul was called at all in post #6. We are talking about a different situation. You keep talking about the whistle. When the whistle occurred means nothing. The foul could be called without a whistle.

Hold on....you are mixing the two situations together. You need to stop picking and choosing which situation you talking about depending on which one makes you slightly look less stupid.

Nope. JR was discussing the wrinkle in several posts. He said some stupid things then tried to cover it up by saying he was talking about #6.

No I'm not. There is no time limit to go back and call a foul. But at some point it just becomes too long even though the rules still allow the foul to be called. Same thing with violations. No one is going to go back and call traveling from 5 minutes ago even though the rules allow it to be done.

You have to be 100% certain it was a deliberate subversion of fair play. The NFHS has made it clear that there are certain types of actions that are just not part of basketball and should not be permitted. For example, the barking dog distraction, on its own, is not obviously against any rule that I can find...but they want it whistled as a T. There are other examples. I view a purposeful attempt to cheat like this in the same vein....it doesn't belong in the game and should be addressed whether there is a specific rule against it or not. But again, you better be 100% sure.

That just about says it all...... again.

You can call a foul without a whistle and there's no time limit to go back and call that foul.

And the rules allow us to go back and call traveling from 5 minutes ago.

Do the rules also allow us to go back and call a foul or violation from last week?

You really aren't an official, are you?

Don't Poke The Bear ...
 

Cobra: After 150 posts I'm sure that you don't know who you're dealing with here. Gruff. Yes. Impatient? Yes. Condescending? Yes. Sarcastic? Yes. Handsome? Yes

"Don't even know the fundamentals"? Wrong. There are only four, or five, regular posters on the Forum that that have the basketball officiating knowledge that Jurassic Referee has. He's gonna be right 98% of the time.

Now I suggest that you don't make eye contact, and just back away slowly. Very slowly. He may spare your life.

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:oseitFkBZmo-GM:

Agreed. But them other 2% can be a real, uh, bear. Yeah, that's the word.

I agree completely with this. From what was posted, IMHO, there isn't enough information to be 100% sure it was deliberate - there are other plausible explanations, and good reasons why any coach with half a brain that deliberately planned something like this would not make a statement like that which draws attention to it.

And it still doesn't address the fact that if the officials were doing their job in the first place it would never have happened anyway regardless of their intent.

Can someone please post the rules which state...

1) What the time limit to call a foul is after it occurs.
2) What the time limit to call a violation is after it occurs.
3) That a sounding the whistle is required for calling a foul.

Ok, thanks. But you must have missed it where he told us at what point the ball becomes dead when a foul is involved.

But you aren't contradicting yourself at all, are you?

So how do you - in your infinite wisdom and knowledge of the rules and how to apply them - decide when it has "become too long?"

Is it the same amount of time each game? Or does it change from Monday night's Girls Varsity to Tuesday night's Boys JV to Wednesday night's NAIA game?

What criteria do you use to decide when it has been too long?

And how many points are you willing to take off the board?

Have you followed - the last few years - the situations in NCAA games where officials allowed "do-overs"?

We all know that there is no specific rule-based time limit on calling most violations or fouls. But there is a point where it is just too late and that is part of the art of officiating.

The primary point which I'm trying to get across is that when several events happen close together, you don't have to beat the 2nd event with your whistle to penalize the first event. Why Jurassic was insisting that was the case and why that has been so difficult for others to accept, I have yet to figure out.

I thought I posted this somewhere earlier but I can't find so I'll ask again:

A1 steals B1's dribble and has a breakaway lay-up. While A1 is crossing the 3-point line Coach B says to you loudly "That was f**king horrible". You do not blow your whistle. A1 finishes his drive to the basket and makes a lay-up.

What is the proper administration of this play?

You then blow your whistle, issue the flagrant technical to Coach B, toss his butt out of the gym, administer the T and spend the rest of the game feeling good.

And wipe out the basket since his flagrant act made the ball dead? :D

Of course not. I said it before...there is a SPECIFIC case play that instructs us to wait until after the basket and then call the T. But that is a very specific case to prevent a coach/player form gaining an unfair advantage. The case leads you to the "right" result even if it actually contradicts the rules.

Well, isn't there a very specific case play involving the wrong team throwing in the ball and then scoring? It seems like folks are deciding to expand that very specific case play to a similar, but not the same, situation. The very specific case play involving the throw-in states specifically in which situation we can wipe out the points.

Cobra...I appreciate your enthusiasm.

What I do not appreciate is your disrespect for a guy that has helped more people on this forum than you can imagine.

You may be a big dog where you are from...but, JR is the big dog here.
Give him some respect, even if you don't agree with him, you will gain more respect that way.

(Do you see Camron, another big dog, giving him a lack of respect...even when he disagrees with him?)

There is a way to debate things...and then there is a way of getting into a pi$$ing match. You will get the respect you deserve here when you learn that...IMHO.

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.

Because it has already been addressed by other posters. There are a couple situations where things which are normally fouls or violations but do not cause the ball to become dead. This play is one. Another the same type of play with someone on the defense running out of bounds to get a violation called. Defensive player sticking his arm though the throw in plane while the clock is running with the hopes of getting the violation called so the clock would stop.

There is no correlation between any of those plays and the play which is being discussed. Those are specific exemptions to when the ball becomes dead. I don't know why you don't understand that.

Unless you are directly quoting the rule book on when a ball becomes dead.

If I am so wrong can you please explain and cite rules to when the ball becomes dead in that situation?

If you aren't going to argue with me why are you quoting a post I made quite some time ago....a post that you already quoted and replied to? Seems like you want to argue.

That is spot on....and what I was TRYING to say...but apparently so very poorly.


I'm not even sure JR is saying that.

If the official takes a 1, 2, maybe 3 seconds to process an unusual situation and finally decides, after the shot was released, to call the T for the act that was just before the shot, I assert that the shot was dead. Being momentarily frozen due to a bizarre situation doesn't mean that the time of occurrence is changed....the ball would be dead by rule.

I think JR is saying that if you've moved on, haven't called the T, go down to the other end of the court, you can't even go back and decide to call the T or wipe the shot.....with that I agree.


Can we just delete 90% of this thread now that we've all realized we were talking about a different set of assumptions?

I don't need to go to #6 to see who's right or wrong after reading this. This is without a doubt, the dumbest thing I have ever read on here.

From Page 33 of the 2009-2011 NFHS Basketball Officials Manual

2.4.2 FOULS

B. Point of the Foul: It is imperative that a definite procedure in officiating mechanics be used when a foul occurs. The following duties should be performed in the order listed by the calling official:

1. Inform the timer and alert the scorer by sounding the whistle with a single sharp blast while raising one hand, fist clenched, straight and high above the head.

I agree. Aamof I think that I have already agreed with what Camron is saying above way back in my posts #32 and 38 of this thread.

I also agree that it's time to move on. We're beating a dead horse. I'm sureasheck not going to argue with Cobra any more about the ball being dead for a technical foul committed before the throw-in even though a whistle wasn't blown for that "T" until after a completed throw-in, a completed play and a made 3-point basket. Which would also mean that the throw-in and everything that happened after it never happened. That's just too bizarre for me. Then again though, that's just me.

There is also a specific exemption for when you can wipe out points that were scored after a botched throw-in. The specific play being discussed doesn't meet that exemption. Your desired administration of the play is only valid when you start making up your own variables to change what actually occurred.

Well, it happened to me tonight.....sorta. White deflects the pass out of bounds. Blue ball. Game is a BIG blowout, so it's fair to say we had all relaxed.
White 21 steps out of bounds. I hand him the ball. White 10 breaks to his basket, all alone. 21 lays the pass out in front of him, and I hit the whistle while the ball is in the air. That's my story and I'm sticking to it. I give the ball back to blue without incident. Two things occur to me. I find it even harder to imagine giving a T in this situation for perceived deception. It took cooperation from both the blue team and me to pull off the trick. Even if I'm positive it was intentional, I would truly hate to call further attention to my own screw up.
Second, I think this is a prime candidate for a rule change. Let this be correctable until there is a change of possession.