Quote:
Originally posted by Back In The Saddle
The error is in the reporting, that is a bookkeeping function. Please note that the rule talks about a bookkeeping error, not a bookkeeper error. Bookkeeping is the process, not the person. If the official is certain that he reported it incorrectly, it can be changed at any time before the final score is approved.
|
Just for the record, BITS has stated my stance on this quite well. I agree with what he wrote here 100%.
The call on the action on the floor was correct, after that everything else is recordkeeping. The transmission process of getting that information into written form broke down.
To me the scorer is merely the stenographer for the offical on the court. If the official had a pen and paper in his pocket that he pulled out and recorded the fouls (as is done in soccer) or if he physically went over to the table after each foul and wrote in the book himself, and made a mistake in doing so (say wrote 15 instead of 35), is there anyone who would contend that this is not a bookkeeping mistake?
To insist that this is an official's mistake and not a bookkeeping mistake is playing semantics and failing to recognize the bigger picture; the end result of the mistake was a bookkeeping error. It doesn't matter who caused it (the official or the scorer); all that is important is the result.
There really was a foul on the court, the people charged with recording that foul in writing didn't do it properly, and a player got charged with a foul committed by a teammate. That is bookkeeping.
Lastly, it my understanding that an "official's mistake" is something done on the playing court having to do with the administration of the game. It is a physical action. Handing the ball to the wrong team for a throw-in as in 7.5.2 Sit B or shooting FTs in the wrong order as in 8.7 Sit B are two good examples.
There is no way to go back in time and not hand that kid the ball, but pencils do have erasers!
I'm now quite glad that I went back a month and posted on this thread, since it has generated even more responses and thought. I actually felt that we did not originally give it proper discussion. Perhaps the NFHS will even write a Case Book play on this to clarify it for everyone just because of our extended discussion. It wouldn't be the first time.
[Edited by Nevadaref on Jan 6th, 2005 at 06:21 AM]