Possesion Arrow Error

[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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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.

[rockyroad]

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

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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.

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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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.

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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

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.

[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.