[rwest]

No unmerited free-throw was taken, but the correctable error is not in the taking of an unmerited free-throw but the awarding of the unmerited free-throw, as rule 2-10 says. I agree that taken the unmerited free-throw is also an error that can be corrected. But the rule says "awarding" and I believe that we can correct the error before the shot is actually taken.

I think we are splitting hairs. Is there any situation you can think of that my interpretation will get me into trouble? If so, please let me know. I want to get this right.

I'm not trying to be argumentative here, but I really do believe this is a correctably error.

In either case, I got the resumption of play correct. We go with an AP throw-in.

Another point in my favor is that in my example we use the POI of interruption to resume play. Now what caused use to use POI? The rule book says POI is .... Method of resuming play due to

1. An official's accidental whistle ===> Not applicable
2. An interrupted game, as in 5-4-3 ===> Not applicable
3. A correctable error ===> I think this applies
4. A double personal, double technical, or simultaneous foul ===> Not Applicable

I also believe the title above case play 8.6.1, which is similar to my example, is misleading. Rule 8-6 is entitled Resuming Play Differences. No where in rule 8-6-1 or 8-6-2 does it mention what to do when an error occurs. So the scenario in Case Play 8.6.1 must involve some other rule. I believe it is Rule 2-10.