Possesion Arrow Error

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

And my point is that in the OP there was absolutely nothing that occurred that would make the ball dead before the foul call. And if the attempted shot where the foul occurred went in, it would have counted.

I was also agreeing that a technical foul being called before the shot attempt would also make the ball dead.

I have no idea how we got seem to have gotten so far off track from that.

The call is not what makes the ball dead. It is when the foul occurs. When did it occur in this case? The team used devious methods to accept a throw-in to which it was not entitled. The ball was dead when they threw it in. No basket.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by just another ref

The call is not what makes the ball dead. It is when the foul occurs. When did it occur in this case? The team used devious methods to accept a throw-in to which it was not entitled. The ball was dead when they threw it in. No basket.

Say what?

Howinthehell can the ball be dead on the throw-in if there NEVER was a whistle? There NEVER was a technical foul called. There was NO whistle for a technical foul EVER.

You have absolutely no rules justification to state that the ball was dead. And if you think differently, cite a rule to back it up.

Did you even bother to read case book play 6.4.1SitD?

That's ridiculous!

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Say what?

Howinthehell can the ball be dead on the throw-in if there NEVER was a whistle? There NEVER was a technical foul called. There was NO whistle for a technical foul EVER.

You have absolutely no rules justification to state that the ball was dead. And if you think differently, cite a rule to back it up.

Did you even bother to read case book play 6.4.1SitD?

That's ridiculous!

Are you blind or just playing dumb?

The rule AND the rule fundamental have been cited, both of which clearly refute your assertion that it takes the whistle to actually make the ball dead.

The case you're citing has NOTHING to do with a a foul, much less an unsportsmanlike foul. It refers to a simple throwin mistake in isolation.

Once again, when the official decides to call an unsportsmanlike technical foul and/or blows the whistle, the ball is retroactively dead to the time of the act that drew the technical foul. Rule 6-7-7 (note the word "occurs") and rule fundamental 16.

[rockyroad]

So, Camron, what you are basically saying is that you would have handled the updated scenario stated earlier in the thread in this way:

V throws ball in, shoots and makes a three pointer. H Coach jumps up and yells "Hey, wait a minute..." You then realize that V should not have had the throw-in, decide they did it purposely, and then take the three points off the board/out of the scorebook, and assess a T on the V Coach.

Is that really what you are saying here?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

So, Camron, what you are basically saying is that you would have handled the updated scenario stated earlier in the thread in this way:

V throws ball in, shoots and makes a three pointer. H Coach jumps up and yells "Hey, wait a minute..." You then realize that V should not have had the throw-in, decide they did it purposely, and then take the three points off the board/out of the scorebook, and assess a T on the V Coach.

Is that really what you are saying here?

No. I'm addressing the situation here.....

Originally Posted by Jfpdi

recently heard this happened at a local VB game. 3 mins left in game, V team scores and calls a timeout. Coming out of timeout H team is slow, V team player steps out of bounds for the throw-in. 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. After V team makes the 3, H coach realizes what happened and is somewhat upset. Other official T's him. H team lost by 5.

...where is becomes apparent that V knew exactly what they were doing. I consider that unsportsmanlike. Without that, you have no indication that it was anything but confusion.

[rockyroad]

You really don't know that it was not confusion on the players part, and a Coach who just happens to know the rule that says once the throw-in is completed it is too late to fix it...player is confused, coach recognized what was happening...so you are guessing that the Coach set it all up during the time-out?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

you really don't know that it was not confusion on the players part, and a coach who just happens to know the rule that says once the throw-in is completed it is too late to fix it...player is confused, coach recognized what was happening...so you are guessing that the coach set it all up during the time-out?

+1

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

You really don't know that it was not confusion on the players part, and a Coach who just happens to know the rule that says once the throw-in is completed it is too late to fix it...player is confused, coach recognized what was happening...so you are guessing that the Coach set it all up during the time-out?

How many teams really don't know who's ball it is coming out of a timeout...particularly the coach? For him to KNOW that it shouldn't have been his throwin at all and be that quick on the ruling, you're pretty gullible if you think it was all a big coincidence. Either the coach doesn't know or he does. He's not going to be ignorant of what is going on (thinking it is their ball) until the very moment the ball is touched inbounds and brilliant in recognizing that instant that it should have been the other team's ball and it is too late to correct the throwin.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

No. I'm addressing the situation here.....



...where is becomes apparent that V knew exactly what they were doing. I consider that unsportsmanlike. Without that, you have no indication that it was anything but confusion.

And I don't give a rat's azz if you consider that as unsportsmanlike or not. My point was and is that you have NO rules basis to void either that throw-in or the 3-point basket basket. And if you or JAR think differently, then cite a rule....any rule.

Even though the officials screwed up, it was still a legal throw-in made with a live ball and nothing occurred under the rules to make the ball dead until after the 3-point basket scored.

[Cobra]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

And I don't give a rat's azz if you consider that as unsportsmanlike or not. My point was and is that you have NO rules basis to void either that throw-in or the 3-point basket basket. And if you or JAR think differently, then cite a rule....any rule.

Even though the officials screwed up, it was still a legal throw-in made with a live ball and nothing occurred under the rules to make the ball dead until after the 3-point basket scored.

The rules have been cited several times. The ball becomes dead when the foul occurs. The foul occurred before the throw in. At that point the ball became dead.

I really don't see why you are arguing this...this is a fundamental. The ball becomes dead when the foul occurs not when the official makes the call.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

And I don't give a rat's azz if you consider that as unsportsmanlike or not. My point was and is that you have NO rules basis to void either that throw-in or the 3-point basket basket. And if you or JAR think differently, then cite a rule....any rule.

Even though the officials screwed up, it was still a legal throw-in made with a live ball and nothing occurred under the rules to make the ball dead until after the 3-point basket scored.

I'm not at all certain about the technical call in this case, but that is a given here, and not part of this particular debate.

Change it up. A1 has a throw-in under B's basket. B1 reaches across the line, takes the ball out of A1's hands, and quickly dunks. The official then sounds the whistle and signals the technical foul. Does the basket count?