Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaqwells
The key with going to the committee person is you're going to the source and get a much better idea of the "intent" they have with the rule itself. That says a lot about the confidence you have in your own abilities. What's worse is that 7-5-3 and 7 prove her wrong. Let's agree to disagree on this one. The intent of the POI rule is to simply resume where you left off. Not quite, but I know what you meant to say. It isn't simply about "where," of course "Alternating possession" doesn't have to do with location, nor does "team that was in control", and "a free throw or a throw-in". Those are all about "who", "what", and "how". Referee Magazine, scrapper, and I (and I suspect many others who read the article, as well as scholarly types) point out that no where is it written that 2b prescribes what you read into it. Rule 4 is "Definitions". You have to look elsewhere for the correct implementation of the terms defined there. Referee Magazine, and those who agree with their analysis, do just that; I provide the citations, you ignore them. There's a word for that. That's made clear by the answer Chuck received.
At least you're consistent, though. Wrong...but consistent.
That goes without saying, doesn't it? I mean, if you're right despite rules to the contrary, and despite the fact that you are reading into 2b words it does not say, then you're right no matter what, and RefMag, Scrapper, myself, and all who find those other rules dispositive are wrong no matter what. There is no need to keep saying it.
Look at it this way: if you do either situation as you suggest (leave the arrow as it is, or take away the endline throw-in and replace it with a designated spot), you're punishing one team over the other. We in the wrong would disagree. Since we believe our position is rooted in the rules as written, and not as divined, your problem is with the rules as written, not us. I happen to disagree with your value assessment, as well, but let's not bore anyone with that. That's specifically what the rule is designed to prevent. That's a bold and confident statement of intent! Is that you talking, or is there a Commissioner there with you? 
Look at it this way:
What would you do if, instead of a DF, you had to go to POI due to an inadvertent whistle? No infraction involved in the interruption to worry about this time, so we may be able to carpool on this one.
Sitch 1: A1 has the ball for an endline throw-in, he throws across the paint to A2, standing OOB. In a momentary brain fart, you blow your whistle for a throw-in violation and immediately realize your error. Are you going to administer an endline throw-in or a spot throw-in? Why? For someone who jumped on me about proper terminology, you can get sloppy at times. I'd go with a non-designated endline TI. Reasoning: Although I cannot find a rule directly on point, CB 7.5.3(d) is identical--live ball, no team control, involves a goal. CB 8.6.1, 9.1.1(a), 9.2.1SitB(a) are helpful in various ways, as well. I can find absolutely nothing that could be read to contradict continuing as if the interruption never occurred. I thought it interesting that once A2 catches the pass, we are back to no team control (on its face, 4-12-2b indicates team control existed during the pass), and 4-36-2c would dictate an APTI for the POI (like CB 7.5.3(c)), but for the goal involved in the situation when the game was interrupted. So, how'd I do? WRONG, again? [Since I know we agree, I already know I'm right. I'll be right for the wrong reasons, though--you wait and see.]
Sitch 2: A1 has the ball for an AP throw-in. About 3 seconds into your count, the table hits the horn and calls you over. After a brief discussion about player fouls and scorebooks, you're ready to resume play. AP throw-in or standard throw-in? |
Sounds like AP, to me. 7-5 doesn't cover it, as far as I can determine. The CB offers what I mentioned in Sitch 1, which together, seem to put such whistles into their own category--we're advised to treat them as though they didn't happen, to the extent possible. If that's not enough, there was no team control, and an official's TO is not an infraction, and there is no goal or end-of-period involved at the time of the interruption--seems to meet the definition of POI at 2c, which provides for an APTI. The arrow didn't change, since the original APTI never "ended" the way the book defines a TI as ending. Right, again? Wrong reasons, though, huh--because my reasons don't get you where you were hoping to lead me.
Last edited by RandyBrown; Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 01:23pm.
|
Tue Mar 29, 2011, 01:15pm
Similar Threads
Linear Mode
