[I wrote this before seeing MT's latest post just above, so it ends up being mostly redundant, but I'll leave it here.]
Great long post by MT with lots of good points. I had been thinking some of the same things, but lots I didn't notice. And I didn't check the rule book.
Yes, I'm pretty sure that's correct. I think the reasoning behind the rule is that when the shot hits the rim and doesn't go in, play continues, and it's not possible to go back and correct the error anymore without negating the continued play. But when the shot does go in, the very next thing that happens is that the opposing team inbounds the ball, which is the same thing that would have happened if the shot clock violation had been called.
This is similar to the reasoning on why it's fair to allow reviewing whether a shot was a 3 or 2 pointer at the next stoppage.
Great long post by MT with lots of good points. I had been thinking some of the same things, but lots I didn't notice. And I didn't check the rule book.
Quote:Earlier in the game, they reviewed a Utah shot that had gone up after the shot clock expired and took 2 points off the board. That review happened many minutes later after the play. Why did they not review our shot that went up after the shot clock expiration? Are shots reviewable ONLY if they go in? If so, they can correct points but they cannot correct a possession error that happens because they missed the call
Yes, I'm pretty sure that's correct. I think the reasoning behind the rule is that when the shot hits the rim and doesn't go in, play continues, and it's not possible to go back and correct the error anymore without negating the continued play. But when the shot does go in, the very next thing that happens is that the opposing team inbounds the ball, which is the same thing that would have happened if the shot clock violation had been called.
This is similar to the reasoning on why it's fair to allow reviewing whether a shot was a 3 or 2 pointer at the next stoppage.