Re: Question.
 

From the original post of bkiledad-quote-"My partner who has called the foul came in and informed me that it was SUPPOSED to be 1 and 1"-unquote.That means that the actual correct call WAS 1 and 1.The table must have that information for the official to say that.If you still think that this is a correctible error,please post exactly which one of the 5 that you think it should be.

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Feb 16th, 2003 at 07:03 PM]

Re: Question.
 

A foul was reported to the table.

What do you still not understand?

I hate to interrupt a good argument, but I still haven't seen an answer to my question.

Is the rebound by B1 considered the Change of Possession needed to use the old method of correction?

Maybe someone can find this situation in the Case Book.

Thanks,
Blackhawk

I answered that three hours ago,Blackhawk.

Am I the Invisible Man today?:D

Blackhawk, Jurassic and I both answered your question immediately after your post.

I understand all of this (if this is the answer you are referring to). But the question is, when does the error (and change of possession) occur?

If the error is handing the shooter the ball and saying "1&1", then it's easy, COP. But if the error occurs when A1 is not given the second shot, has the COP occurred after the error or before?

Since there is no team control on a try, is the rebound by B1 really a COP if the error is not giving the A1 the second shot?

The problem is probably my inability to effectively articulate the question.

Blackhawk

The correctible error occurs when you fail to award the 2nd merited FT.That's rule 2-10-1(a).A "change of possession" has absolutely nothing to with the fact that the error occurred,or what happens until you recognize the correctible error.The error is correctible only if you discover it during the time limits that I detailed above.That's rule 2-10-2.To take care of what happens between the time that the correctible error occurs and the error is actually discovered,you apply rule 2-10-5. The "COP" that you are talking about only comes into play when the non-FT shooting team gets possession of the ball anytime before the error is legally discovered.If there is a "COP",you go back and shoot the missed FT,and then go the POI(point of interruption)-ie-whoever had the ball when you discovered the error is gonna get it back.If there is no "COP" before the error is discovered,then you just line 'em up again and shoot the missed shot.That's rule 2-10-6.

OK now?



[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Feb 16th, 2003 at 09:16 PM]

Here is my original post:

OK, I think we got this one figured out.
Here is another question:

Turn the situation around..... You tell the players it's 1&1 when it should be 2. If B rebounds the ball, is that considered a change of possession for the purpose of deciding which correction procedure you will use in the correction?

(i.e. Stop play, clear lane, shoot, resume play vs. line 'um up and shoot)

What if A rebounds? ~ In both, error is recognized within time restrictions. I'll give my opinion after some discussion.

Blackhawk



And after all that, which we really all should know, the answer is in (((triple parentheses))).

It was a question brought up in a tournament last weekend. Basically "Did a COP happen?", and the correct answer is yes. As JR (finally) said "Anytime the Non-FT shooting team has possession" you go to the POI correction procedure.

The game officials lined 'em up under the new rule, thinking a COP had not occurred, and did not understand my explaination as to why they were wrong. (Maybe for the same reason I had such a hard time explaining the question here.)

Blackhawk

Re: Re: Question.
 

I really do not know how you got all that information, when he did not say. There was total miscommunication and his partner originally told him that they were shooting two. Now if he originally told him they were shooting two, when did it get discovered that they were shooting one and one? Did the calling official realize he gave his partner the wrong information? Did he report something different to the table than what he told his partner? What happen before the calling official told his partner?

I can assume that you do not know the answer to this, but you seemed to want to throw your hat in this.

Peace

Re: Re: Re: Question.
 

None of that matters. The case book play is exactly on point.

Re: Re: Re: Answer
 

I really do not know how you got all that information, when he did not say. There was total miscommunication and his partner originally told him that they were shooting two. Now if he originally told him they were shooting two, when did it get discovered that they were shooting one and one? Did the calling official realize he gave his partner the wrong information? Did he report something different to the table than what he told his partner? What happen before the calling official told his partner?

I can assume that you do not know the answer to this, but you seemed to want to throw your hat in this.
[/B][/QUOTE]Not one thing that you just posted above is relevant at all to the original post.Not one thing that you wrote above matters in the least to the way that the play is handled according to the RULES! It is all completely irrelevant.If you think that it is relevant,please tell me exactly why it is,and cite some rules-any rules-to support your reasoning. You stated that this was a correctible error.Please give me a rules citation that will back up that claim.You also said that there was no casebook play covering this situation.A casebook play has been quoted verbatim to you.Again,if you intend to dispute that casebook play,please tell us why,and also post a rules citation that will back up your reasoning.

In other words,Rut,please spell out exactly why Tony and I were wrong on this play,and your answer was correct!

As JR (finally) said "Anytime the Non-FT shooting team has possession" you go to the POI correction procedure.
[/QUOTE]"Finally said"? Geeze,Blackhawk,I posted the 2 sentences above in my initial response to your question five hours ago.:D

"Finally said"? Geeze,Blackhawk,I posted the 2 sentences above in my initial response to your question five hours ago.:D [/QUOTE]

JR~

The answer to the question I was TRYING to ask in not in this quote. We all know the difference between a POI correction and a "line 'um up" correction, and how a COP effects the decision. My question was weather or not the rebound by B1 constituted the COP needed to use the POI correction procedure.

The game official's ruling was that the error occurred when they did not award the second throw, at the same time B1 rebounded the first throw. Therefore, the COP did not happen after the error, and he used the "line 'um up" procedure.

Your argument of "Anytime the non-FT shooting team has possession" was the argument I used with the game official. So we agree, :) and they should have used the POI procedure. Hopefully I was able to articulate my question finally. Sorry for the confusion.

Blackhawk

Re: Re: Re: Re: Question.
 

Was I talking to you?

Peace

Was I talking to you too?
 

Why would I spell out something to individuals that were not present? You were not there. So you can obviously not answer my question. I am not asking anything about the ruling, I am asking a question about the communication that took place. You were not there, so you cannot answer my question. But you probably think you can.

Peace