Three (3) point attempt made, then changed to a 2 point goal

[APG]

Originally Posted by RobbyinTN

Assuming the play was in the Trail's PCA, what was the Lead doing looking there anyway? No way as a Lead would I have changed that unless I was absolutely certain beyond any doubt that he had missed it.

It was a last second shot. All officials should have an opinion on the last second shot. Still the lead shouldn't be going to the trail unless he has absolute knowledge that he missed a three vs. two.

[RobbyinTN]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

It was a last second shot. All officials should have an opinion on the last second shot. Still the lead shouldn't be going to the trail unless he has absolute knowledge that he missed a three vs. two.

Yea, I wasn't thinking the last second shot think. Still, unless the L is absolutely certain, he doesn't need to make the call as the T should have the best angle on the play. I assume this was a two whistle game since there was no mention of the C who would most likely had a good angle on it as well.

[26 Year Gap]

I had a play in Friday's game where I was trail and C signaled for a 3 at about the intersection of our two areas. Kid's toe was clearly on the line. He gave the field goal sign and I whistled before the inbound could take place. I went over to my partner and told him I clearly saw the foot on the line. He changed it to a 2. I was tableside and advised the scorer, timer, HC [who knew and said that his foot was clearly on the line] & VC [who happened to request a TO after the made basket].

[jearef]

Seems to me that most of us are discounting the possibility that the shot we are talking about was a "deep corner" three. If that is the case, especially on a last second shot, the lead may actually be in a better position to see the shooter's feet than the trail.

Absent that situation, however, I agree with everyone else. Lead has no business going to the T unless he is absolutely certain the call was missed. I also agree that the table should not have been consulted. The book lets us consult the timer if the question is whether the shot was released in time; there is no provision for consulting the table for a 2 vs. 3 call.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by jearef

Seems to me that most of us are discounting the possibility that the shot we are talking about was a "deep corner" three.

It's being discounted because it's impossible given the scenario posted in the OP.

Originally Posted by johnny1784

A1 shoots a shot from behind the three point line and the trail official indicates a three point attempt. The trail official’s position is straight-line with shooters feet. The shot by A1 goes in and trail official signals the shot is good at buzzer. The lead official thinks the shooter A1 was touching the 3 point line and confronts trail official who isn’t sure it was in fact a 3 point attempt. Trail official then asked the table what they saw. Table personnel agree with lead official that A1’s toes where on the 3 point line. Trail official waves off the 3 point goal and instructs table to change to a 2 point goal for Team A. Team A lost the game by 1 point. Was the correct method applied to wave off the 3 point goal?

[jdw3018]

I don't suppose it's actually impossible, but it would make for an interesting discussion in the locker room after the game about properly working for a good angle as the ball goes away from you at trail...

[Adam]

Unless the T is sitting two feet off the end line, there's no way he gets a straightline view of the feet on a deep-corner three.

[jearef]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

It's being discounted because it's impossible given the scenario posted in the OP.

And some folks say that subtlety is a lost art. Snaq, I'm good with the red font, but 275 point type? Maybe just a bit over the top?

As you know, sometimes discussions that begin with a particular play situation evolve into a discussion of overall philosophy. I (incorrectly) assumed we were talking generally about whether it is ever acceptable for lead to offer information to the trail on a 3-point shot.

That having been said, the point you make is certainly well-taken. In the immortal words of Emily Litella, "That's very different. Never mind."

[Adam]

Originally Posted by jearef

And some folks say that subtlety is a lost art. Snaq, I'm good with the red font, but 275 point type? Maybe just a bit over the top?

As you know, sometimes discussions that begin with a particular play situation evolve into a discussion of overall philosophy. I (incorrectly) assumed we were talking generally about whether it is ever acceptable for lead to offer information to the trail on a 3-point shot.

That having been said, the point you make is certainly well-taken. In the immortal words of Emily Litella, "That's very different. Never mind."

LOL, yeah it was over the top. Overall stressful day, sorry.

[johnny1784]

Originally Posted by jearef

And some folks say that subtlety is a lost art. Snaq, I'm good with the red font, but 275 point type? Maybe just a bit over the top?

As you know, sometimes discussions that begin with a particular play situation evolve into a discussion of overall philosophy. I (incorrectly) assumed we were talking generally about whether it is ever acceptable for lead to offer information to the trail on a 3-point shot.

That having been said, the point you make is certainly well-taken. In the immortal words of Emily Litella, "That's very different. Never mind."

Yes, is it ever acceptable for the lead to offer information to the trail on a 3-point shot, and is it conceivable that a crew would consult with table on plays such as this?

I would hope other ref's could offer good advice for those officials involved, along with me wanting to know your thoughts.

I would not want to consult the table unless another official wearing stripes was sitting there as part of the table crew. Somewhat like during regional and state playoffs.