[Nevadaref]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Still disagree. Read case book play 2.10.1SitD. Very similar. There's no further actual correction to be made in this case either, which is supposed to be your point, but note the language that is used therein- "Play continues briefly with B1 advancing the ball before the official RECOGNIZES THE ERROR and stops play. Again note the particular word "Error". Then note that the actual heading of this particular case book play is "CORRECTIBLE ERRORS".

Hmmmm.... My heading reads "CORRECTABLE ERRORS."

It's not that there's no further actual correction to be made, but that no unmerited free throw ever took place that is my point. I do not believe that an official saying two shots to the table or players on the lane constitutes actually awarding the FTs. I personally believe that a FT has not been awarded until the ball is put at the disposal of the free thrower making it live. Therefore, just as 8.7SitB states, "However, since all merited free throws were attempted it does not constitute a correctable error sitution," this situation should not constitute a correctable error since no unmerited free throw was attempted.


Nevertheless, you highlight an interesting point about diction. We should only use the word error when we are referring to a 2-10 situation, otherwise we should use mistake, wrong, incorrect, etc.

Hence, I think the rules committee should reword and relocate 2.10.1SitD next to 8.6.1.
If we look at 7.5.2SitB (giving the ball to the wrong team for a throw-in) the wording used is "mistake by the official" and it is not correctable. This is the language that should be used in the current 2.10.1SitD; and 8.6.1 should be cleaned-up as well by changing "erroneous information" to "incorrect information."

However, and more importantly, after closely reading the case book, I noticed that this case play (2.10.1 SitD) does not mesh with 8.6.1 (c). While they are indeed very similar game situations the play rulings are different.
In both plays the ball should remain live if the try is unsuccessful, but because the official provides "erroneous information" to the players which indicates otherwise (stating 2 shots) something goofy happens.

Now here's how they differ:
2.10.1SitD makes no mention of the AP arrow at all, while the 8.6.1 instructs us to use the arrow if only one team attempts to rebound.
2.10.1SitD does not specify who attempted to rebound A1's miss, only stating that B1 rebounds and play continues briefly. Yet we know from 8.6.1a,b that "play should be blown dead immediately and resumed using the alternating-possession procedure," if both teams didn't attempt to rebound.
Since the official does not immediately stop play in 2.10.1SitD. Does this mean both teams tried to rebound or that only Team B had players along the lane?

Furthermore, in 2.10.1SitD the official then stops play as B1 is advancing the ball; however, 8.6.1c (the part in which both teams try to rebound the miss) clearly says, "Play should continue." So the official in 2.10.1SitD should not have stopped play when he did. By doing so he created an "accidental whistle" (7.5.4) with Team B in control of the ball. This is why play is resumed with a throw-in by Team B at the out-of-bounds spot nearest to where play was interrupted in 2.10.1SitD. In short, the official in 2.10.1SitD should have stopped play immediately and gone to the arrow or not stopped play at all.