[Lotto]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Lotto,in this particular case,using the language of the rule above,the "point of interruption" and play resuming as "after any normal free throw' happen to be exactly the same thing. They discovered the error before the "normal free throws" were taken,,and then corrected the error before again resuming play with the "normal free throws" for the 2nd. B foul. Make sense?

That isn't how I read the rule. The part of 2-10-4 that starts with "unless" (quoted above) says to me that when the c.e. involves awarding free throws and there has been no change of team possession since the error, you don't resume from the point of interruption. You just start play with the free throws and go on from there, with a rebound (if the last free throw is missed) or an out-of bounds by the defense along the endline (if the last free throw is made). Am I reading this wrong?

For example, suppose B commits a common foul against A and merited free throws are not awarded. A takes the ball in bounds and calls a time-out after a few seconds. The c.e. is discovered, A gets c.e. free throws, and makes both. Then play would continue "as after any normal free throw" with B taking the ball out of bounds on the endline. You wouldn't give the ball back to A at the point of interruption.

So what makes this situation different (by rule---I know what makes it different on the court)? The only way to have it the way you've laid it out is if B's second foul has caused a "change in team possession." Has there been? Unfortunately, there's no definition of "team possession" in Rule 4.

Sorry to be so long winded, but it's hard to convey subtle shades of meaning of text over the internet!