Possesion Arrow Error

[TimTaylor]

Originally Posted by just another ref

The coach didn't do anything after the shot. How is the foul after the shot?

You might want to go back and read post #6......

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by TimTaylor

You might want to go back and read post #6......

If the technical was called for what the coach said at that point, the shot should count. My understanding what that the technical was for the preceding act of apparent deception for his team to get the throw-in. I actually have a problem with this theory.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by just another ref

My understanding what that the technical was for the preceding act of apparent deception for his team to get the throw-in. I actually have a problem with this theory.

JAR, see post #6. There was NO technical foul called before the made shot for an apparent deception to get an unwarranted throw-in. If someone wants to call a "T" for that AFTER the made shot, fine. You do have rules backing to do so. What there is absolutely NO rules backing for though is for anyone to retoactively call an unsporting "T" and then go back and void either the throw-in or the made 3-pointer. You can't retroactively make a ball that was legally live dead, as Camron is trying to claim(I think).

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

JAR, see post #6. There was NO technical foul called before the made shot for an apparent deception to get an unwarranted throw-in. If someone wants to call a "T" for that AFTER the made shot, fine. You do have rules backing to do so. What there is absolutely NO rules backing for though is for anyone to retoactively call an unsporting "T" and then go back and void either the throw-in or the made 3-pointer. You can't retroactively make a ball that was legally live dead, as Camron is trying to claim(I think).

That's exactly what happens in 10.1.8. I realize the difference in the two situations, but the foul is "actually called" after the fact in both. If the shot is waved off in one, why would it not be waved off in the other?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by just another ref

That's exactly what happens in 10.1.8. I realize the difference in the two situations, but the foul is "actually called" after the fact in both. If the shot is waved off in one, why would it not be waved off in the other?

Because the RULING in 10.1.8 very specifically states "This procedure shall not be used in any other throw-in situation in which a mistake allows the wrong team to inbound the ball." It covers one very specific situation only.

The throw-in situation described in post #6 is one in which a wrong team was also allowed to inbound the ball. And the RULING of case book play 6.4.1SitD tells us how to deal with those---> "Once the throw-in ends - it is too late to change anything."

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Because the RULING in 10.1.8 very specifically states "This procedure shall not be used in any other throw-in situation in which a mistake allows the wrong team to inbound the ball." It covers one very specific situation only.

[/i]

True, but the procedure in this case includes putting "consumed" time back on the clock. No one is asking for that here.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by just another ref

True, but the procedure in this case includes putting "consumed" time back on the clock. No one is asking for that here.

Naw, instead some people are saying you can void a basket that was legally made with a live ball. As of right now, I'm still waiting for a rules citation that will allow us to do that. And if you're going to try to use a technical foul called after the basket was made, you'd better have some kind of rules citation attached to that flight of fancy too. That particular scenario isn't worth responding to otherwise, as I told cobra. And if you try to tell me that you can retroactively call a technical foul after a live ball went through the basket, well, good luck backing up any assertation like that with a rules citation also.