Team control, throw-in, IW

[just another ref]

This is deeper than just the debate about team control. In the OP, assuming the ball hit the bottom of the board, this should have been nothing, but was called a violation. But now what to do if this incorrect whistle sounds a split second before the ball is grabbed out of the air by team B? I'm gonna let the incorrectly called violation stand rather than change it to an accidental whistle and give the ball back to A.

[bob jenkins]

there's a play in the NCAAW case book. I think it's also in the NCAAM book. A1 jumps from inbouds, grabs the ball and is about to land out of bounds. A1 requests a TO, and the official blows the whistle. (For those who don't know, in NCAA, the TO should NOT be granted in this case).

Ruling: IW, give the ball back to A, even though the "logical and obvious" conclusion of the play if there was no whistle would be a violation on A and the ball to B.

I don't see that as much different from the IW when B is about to grab the ball after it hits the bottom of the backboard, or any of the other plays that have been presented here to show why the IW rule might be "unfair."

[johnny d]

Originally Posted by just another ref

This is deeper than just the debate about team control. In the OP, assuming the ball hit the bottom of the board, this should have been nothing, but was called a violation. But now what to do if this incorrect whistle sounds a split second before the ball is grabbed out of the air by team B? I'm gonna let the incorrectly called violation stand rather than change it to an accidental whistle and give the ball back to A.

This is never a good philosophy. When officials start making judgments as to what is fair/not fair and using that as the basis for the calls they make, only bad things can happen.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by just another ref

This should have been nothing, but was called a violation... I'm gonna let the incorrectly called violation stand rather than change it to an accidental whistle and give the ball back to A.

Originally Posted by johnny d

This is never a good philosophy. When officials start making judgments as to what is fair/not fair and using that as the basis for the calls they make, only bad things can happen.

Agree. When I'm put into a position where I have to make another wrong to make the original wrong a right, I don't. I just suck it up and go with the rulebook. That way I only have to make one apology to a coach, athletic director, player, assignment commissioner, partner, etc., not two apologies.

Sometimes life isn't fair, and sometimes the rules of basketball aren't fair either.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by johnny d

This is never a good philosophy. When officials start making judgments as to what is fair/not fair and using that as the basis for the calls they make, only bad things can happen.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Agree. When I'm put into a position where I have to make another wrong to make the original wrong a right, I don't. I just suck it up and go with the rulebook. That way I only have to make one apology to a coach, athletic director, player, assignment commissioner, partner, etc., not two apologies.

Sometimes life isn't fair, and sometimes the rules of basketball aren't fair either.

And this is why the part is in front of the book about intent and purpose of the rules and a team not being given an advantage which is not intended by a rule. I don't believe it was intended to give the ball back to the wrong team because of an official's mistake. Sometimes it can't be helped. In this case it can.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by just another ref

And this is why the part is in front of the book about intent and purpose of the rules and a team not being given an advantage which is not intended by a rule. I don't believe it was intended to give the ball back to the wrong team because of an official's mistake. Sometimes it can't be helped. In this case it can.

Good point, playing the old "intent and purpose" card.

But this is the part that concerned me, and maybe I was reading it wrong:

Originally Posted by just another ref

I'm gonna let the incorrectly called violation stand rather than change it to an accidental whistle ...

I'm not unilaterally going to change the original violation call. I am going to get together with my partner, and the coaches, use 2-3, and the "intent and purpose of the rules", to come up with a correct decision, in line with all the rules in the rulebook, including the one that just another ref pointed out. I'm not going to make a second mistake, any followup to the first mistake will be by the book, the entire book, and nothing but the book, so help me God.

[BryanV21]

If possible, I always go with the rule book. If that means an inadvertent whistle, then so be it. By doing so I have solid reasons for my decision. By assuming things, I'm leaving myself open for more questions from coaches, observers, etc.

Here's what I say..

"I'm sorry, I made a mistake. By rule, this is how things go from there. I know it's not ideal, but it's the way things have to go."

Whoever I say that to many not be happy, but they can't argue against the rule book. At least not to me.