Possesion Arrow Error

[Cobra]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

1) Why would the officials act as if the ball was live right from the start of the throw-in up until the made 3-pointer?

It is no different from any other foul. The foul occurs and everyone continues to act as if the ball is live while the official is deciding if it was a foul or not. The only difference is this play took longer than normal for the foul to be called.

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

3) Is there any time limit attached to how much time elapses between the occurence of the foul and blowing the whistle for that occurence?

The rules don't say that there is a limit.

[M&M Guy]

Cobra and jar - let's change the play ever so slightly. Instead of B2 hitting a 3-pointer, they go up and slam the ball home, with authority. If the ball is indeed dead, would you charge B2 with a second T for purposely dunking a dead ball?

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Cobra and jar - let's change the play ever so slightly. Instead of B2 hitting a 3-pointer, they go up and slam the ball home, with authority. If the ball is indeed dead, would you charge B2 with a second T for purposely dunking a dead ball?

No. He had no way of knowing the ball was dead.

[Loudwhistle]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Cobra and jar - let's change the play ever so slightly. Instead of B2 hitting a 3-pointer, they go up and slam the ball home, with authority. If the ball is indeed dead, would you charge B2 with a second T for purposely dunking a dead ball?

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

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by just another ref

No. He had no way of knowing the ball was dead.

Originally Posted by Loudwhistle

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?

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Is intent part of the rule?

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

[Adam]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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

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.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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

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?

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

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

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

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.

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 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.

7.5.2 B deals with determining the throw-in spot.

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 launches 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?

You're right. That is an extreme example.

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

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by Cobra

It is no different from any other foul. The foul occurs and everyone continues to act as if the ball is live while the official is deciding if it was a foul or not. The only difference is this play took longer than normal for the foul to be called.



The rules don't say that there is a limit.

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?