Basket counted that did not go in

[Cobra]

Originally Posted by slow whistle

this is beyond the realm of "judgement" in my opinion, this is fact that is easily discerned apparently by everyone

In a baseball game there is a ground ball batted ball to the infield. The fielder fielder throws to first base, the ball gets there and the runner is still 30 feet away. It is easily discerned by everyone (who saw the entire play clearly) that the ball beat the runner. Is it a judgement call? What if the runner was out by 10 feet? 5 feet? 1 foot? Half of a foot? At what point does it become a judgement call? The way it actually works is that they are all judgement calls. It is just that some are much more obvious than others. The official might get distracted and get an obvious call wrong.

It is the same thing in the basketball situation. The officials took their eyes off the ball and all of a sudden it is rolling on the rim and goes through the basket. They have to make a judgement as to what happened. None of them saw a second player shoot the ball, they have no reason to think that the ball didn't go in off the original shot so they count the score.

The key thing to remember is that the officials must adjudge what happened. What actually happened does not matter. All that matters is what the officials have.

[slow whistle]

Originally Posted by Cobra

In a baseball game there is a ground ball batted ball to the infield. The fielder fielder throws to first base, the ball gets there and the runner is still 30 feet away. It is easily discerned by everyone (who saw the entire play clearly) that the ball beat the runner. Is it a judgement call? What if the runner was out by 10 feet? 5 feet? 1 foot? Half of a foot? At what point does it become a judgement call? The way it actually works is that they are all judgement calls. It is just that some are much more obvious than others. The official might get distracted and get an obvious call wrong.

It is the same thing in the basketball situation. The officials took their eyes off the ball and all of a sudden it is rolling on the rim and goes through the basket. They have to make a judgement as to what happened. None of them saw a second player shoot the ball, they have no reason to think that the ball didn't go in off the original shot so they count the score.

The key thing to remember is that the officials must adjudge what happened. What actually happened does not matter. All that matters is what the officials have.

You are completely ignoring reason. Of course there is a point where a fact turns grey and then becomes a judgement call, but it is also true that there is a point when a fact is a fact. If we always leave it up to judgement, then why go to the table at all? If the officials judged that the ball went in, but the table had called them over and told them what really happened, are they now changing their judgement? Or are they admitting that they screwed up based on the fact of what happened? Sort of hard to change your judgement of what happened 3 minutes ago.

[Nevadaref]

I can't be the only one who wants to see the video of this.

[Cobra]

Originally Posted by slow whistle

You are completely ignoring reason. Of course there is a point where a fact turns grey and then becomes a judgement call, but it is also true that there is a point when a fact is a fact.

The fact of what happened never turns grey. The only thing that changes is how difficult it is to discern what actually happened.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Cobra

The fact of what happened never turns grey. The only thing that changes is how difficult it is to discern what actually happened.

It's fact vs. opinion.

Did he step on the line or not? yes or no, even though it may not have been seen correctly, or at all

Did a foul occur? matter of opinion

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Cobra

In a baseball game there is a ground ball batted ball to the infield. The fielder fielder throws to first base, the ball gets there and the runner is still 30 feet away. It is easily discerned by everyone (who saw the entire play clearly) that the ball beat the runner. Is it a judgement call? What if the runner was out by 10 feet? 5 feet? 1 foot? Half of a foot? At what point does it become a judgement call? The way it actually works is that they are all judgement calls. It is just that some are much more obvious than others. The official might get distracted and get an obvious call wrong.

It is the same thing in the basketball situation. The officials took their eyes off the ball and all of a sudden it is rolling on the rim and goes through the basket. They have to make a judgement as to what happened. None of them saw a second player shoot the ball, they have no reason to think that the ball didn't go in off the original shot so they count the score.

The key thing to remember is that the officials must adjudge what happened. What actually happened does not matter. All that matters is what the officials have.

More apt and realistic comparison would be a batted ball that clears the outfield fence on the fly and then bounds off the hill behind it back into the field of play but the umpires say it never cleared the fence.

[slow whistle]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

More apt and realistic comparison would be a batted ball that clears the outfield fence on the fly and then bounds off the hill behind it back into the field of play but the umpires say it never cleared the fence.

Which is exactly why replay was instituted in the first place - based on the premise that there are some things that are beyond judgement in that they are fact. In the absence of replay at the HS level a little bit of sportsmanship wouldn't be a bad thing. Is it required by rule, of course not, all I'm saying is that I would have thought a lot more highly of the coach if he had called the crew over with the other coach and said "look this is what happened".

[fullor30]

Originally Posted by Cobra

In a baseball game there is a ground ball batted ball to the infield. The fielder fielder throws to first base, the ball gets there and the runner is still 30 feet away. It is easily discerned by everyone (who saw the entire play clearly) that the ball beat the runner. Is it a judgement call? What if the runner was out by 10 feet? 5 feet? 1 foot? Half of a foot? At what point does it become a judgement call? The way it actually works is that they are all judgement calls. It is just that some are much more obvious than others. The official might get distracted and get an obvious call wrong.

It is the same thing in the basketball situation. The officials took their eyes off the ball and all of a sudden it is rolling on the rim and goes through the basket. They have to make a judgement as to what happened. None of them saw a second player shoot the ball, they have no reason to think that the ball didn't go in off the original shot so they count the score.

The key thing to remember is that the officials must adjudge what happened. What actually happened does not matter. All that matters is what the officials have.

To tag on to your out by thirty feet scenario

Tie game, A scores two with 10 seconds to go. Scoreboard and table erroneously put up two for wrong team. Buzzer goes off game over, officials in a coma run off court don't remember anything and game goes to wrong team.

They made a 'judgement' or lack of one.

The point is, as the coach who benefits from this travesty without a shred of sportsmanship conveys to his/her players clearly a wrong message. An error of the magnitude that happened in OP game trumps 'judgement'

To win the aforementioned game in OP by deception and if coach clearly knew what happened along with his team is wrong on any level.

All this being said, we need to see the tape.