No One Saw The Ball Go In

[deecee]

If no one saw it go in AND the scorekeeper isn't sure then it should not be 3 points. this begs the question that when the kid took the ball for an inbounds as if the basket was made why didn't any of the officials whistle a violation here

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by deecee

If no one saw it go in AND the scorekeeper isn't sure then it should not be 3 points. this begs the question that when the kid took the ball for an inbounds as if the basket was made why didn't any of the officials whistle a violation here

That phrase doesn't mean what you think it means. Look it up and learn something today.

[youngump]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

That phrase doesn't mean what you think it means. Look it up and learn something today.

Nevada makes a pedantic point with accuracy. But laying aside his point, it does raise in my mind the question of why nobody called traveling or out of bounds when a defensive player grabbed the ball out of the air and walked out of bounds with it.

[Spence]

Originally Posted by youngump

Nevada makes a pedantic point with accuracy. But laying aside his point, it does raise in my mind the question of why nobody called traveling or out of bounds when a defensive player grabbed the ball out of the air and walked out of bounds with it.

Lead had a battle in his lap. The two outside , for whatever reason, didn't see the ball go in. The kid who grabbed the ball thought it did so he took it out. All of the officials assumed the ball went in and the other two saw it. So no travel call.

[Rich1]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

That phrase doesn't mean what you think it means. Look it up and learn something today.

Before chastising others with sophomoric commentary that has nothing to do with what we discuss here, a quick fact check yourself would be advised. The phrase referenced has several meanings, one of which is exactly as used by deecee.

As to the situation at hand, I do not see this as a CE. Based on the information from the table (and reactions of the players) it seems that a goal has been scored but there is no knowledge of from where. In this case only 2 points should be awarded, which should be clarified by the R asap but could happen anytime before the game ends since it is a scoring error. All other action still stands so I woud not erase the other teams basket nor cancel any fouls etc. that may have occured.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Rich1

As to the situation at hand, I do not see this as a CE. Based on the information from the table (and reactions of the players) it seems that a goal has been scored but there is no knowledge of from where. In this case only 2 points should be awarded, which should be clarified by the R asap but could happen anytime before the game ends since it is a scoring error. All other action still stands so I woud not erase the other teams basket nor cancel any fouls etc. that may have occured.

I disagree, from the way I read the OP. They knew it was thrown from behind the arc, they just didn't see it go in. The lead simply assumed it went in by the players' reactions (I've done that on a free throw once).

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Rich1

Before chastising others with sophomoric commentary that has nothing to do with what we discuss here, a quick fact check yourself would be advised. The phrase referenced has several meanings, one of which is exactly as used by deecee.

Rich, it's a good thing that your officiating skills are superior to your grammar. Since you decided to come into this with an attitude, why don't you join young deecee in taking a look at this link (and several others which can be easily found with an Internet search) and learn something yourself today: Grammar Girl : Begs the Question :: Quick and Dirty Tips ?

Furthermore, my comment in response to deecee was meant to contain humor as well as to possibly help him learn a language fact. Clearly, you missed the reference to The Princess Bride.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk

[Rich1]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Rich, it's a good thing that your officiating skills are superior to your grammar. Since you decided to come into this with an attitude, why don't you join young deecee in taking a look at this link (and several others which can be easily found with an Internet search) and learn something yourself today: Grammar Girl : Begs the Question :: Quick and Dirty Tips ?

Furthermore, my comment in response to deecee was meant to contain humor as well as to possibly help him learn a language fact. Clearly, you missed the reference to The Princess Bride.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk

If you only knew how absurd I feel having chosen to consult sources such as the Cambridge Idioms Dictionary and Cambridge Dictionary of American Idioms. How silly of me to trust the expertise of one of the top 5 universities in the world over the musings of someone called grammer girl. Tsk, tsk.

And yes, I did miss the Princess Bride reference. Have seen the movie (it was funny from what I remember).

Now, can't we all just get along and get back to basketball.

[deecee]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

That phrase doesn't mean what you think it means. Look it up and learn something today.

By the book you are correct. However in every day usage this is how it is used. It may be wrong "by the strict definition" but hey I don't think there's a hair out there you don't like to split.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by deecee

By the book you are correct. However in every day usage this is how it is used. It may be wrong "by the strict definition" but hey I don't think there's a hair out there you don't like to split.

Yikes! Your reasoning is that because many people commonly use this phrase incorrectly it is acceptable to do so yourself? Talk about aiming low.
Perhaps officials shouldn't call traveling or backcourt violations correctly because so many coaches, players, and fans have a misunderstanding of these rules. Let's just acquiesce and call it how they think it should be.

Here's another phrase for you "not suffer fools gladly."

[Welpe]

This case has some relevant information.

2.10.1 SITUATION L:

A1 jumps and releases a try for goal apparently from behind the three-point line. The try is successful. The covering official does not indicate a three-point try and does not signal three points after the goal. The Team A coach rushes to the table and requests a 60-second time-out to discuss a correctable error. It is determined neither official clearly observed A1’s location before he/she jumped to try.

RULING: No change can be made and two points are properly scored. The 60-second time-out remains charged to Team A. (5-8-4)


Based upon the language of the case play, I'd say that if it's known with certainty that the thrower was behind the three point line then three points can be awarded.

This is a correctable error and it was caught in time however there isn't a lot of concrete information to go on. None of the officials observed the ball go in and the scorer only "thinks" it went in. That's probably enough to go on in awarding the score since it seems the teams also reacted as if it went in but it still seems a little dicey to me.

If nobody from the table saw it either, we're on some shaky ground at that point. I'm not sure we can award points for something none of the officials saw.