|
We had a case of correctable error under Federation rules (2-10) that is not directly addressed by any of the 11 situations in the casebook.
A1 deliberately ran into screener B1 and, on making contact, threw an elbow which just missed B1s face. A flagrant intentional personal foul was called and B1 was, with difficulty, ejected. The officials did a good job just keeping body parts from losing close personal proximity to each other. However, A1 was given the ball for a throw in at the spot of the foul and the 2 foul shot part of the penalty for a flagrant intentional personal foul were not awarded.
The ball was inbounded by Team A and B2 fouled A1. Team A being in the bonus, A1 went to the line, but had not been given the ball, when the table called attention to the error.
The officials reasoned as follows:
1. A potentially correctable error had occurred (failure to award merited free throws). (2-10-1)
2. The correction of the error could be made in the proper time window. (2-10-2) The error was recognized during the first dead ball after the clock had properly started.
3. Points scored, time consumed, etc. should not be nullified (2-10-5)
4. Using the principle that fouls are administered in the order in which they occur, the free throws that were not properly awarded were shot first, with the lane cleared. Next, the bonus free throws (in this case, 1-and-1) were shot with the lane positions filled, the point of interruption. And play resumed from there.
There was nashing of teeth over the matter of whether or not the full penalty for a flagrant intentional personal foul had been fulfilled. Team As coach claimed the lane should have been cleared during the shooting of the bonus free throws and his team given the ball after as part of the flagrant intentional foul penalty. Nice try, coach!
But in fact, his team HAD gotten the ball after the flagrant intentional personal foul, and had derived an irrefutable benefit from it - the subsequent foul against Team B. It made less sense to the officials to give Team A a benefit in excess of the stipulated penalty than to force them to bear the burden of having the parts of the penalty awarded out of their natural order. This last matter was, in fact, an uncorrectable part of the correctable error, and appears not to be directly addressed in the rules.
Yuh think?
|