agreed. billy take a look at 2.10.1 d and f. F is the AP play nevada cites above.

Team A Never Got Possession Of The Ball ...
 

Team A never got possession of the ball for a throwin, plus, if they did, it would be too late for the error to be correctable. The error must be corrected during the dead ball period immediately after Team B violates. If the officials hand to ball to Team A for a throwin, the ball becomes live, and the error is no longer correctable, it's too late to correct.

Let's Go To The Videotape ...
 

2.10.1 SITUATION D: A1 is fouled. Team A is awarded the ball out of bounds.
The foul was Team B’s seventh team foul and A1 should have been awarded a one
and one bonus. Team A scores on the ensuing throw-in. As the ball passes
through the net, the officials are informed of the error. RULING: The error is discovered
within the correctable error timeframe. Count the goal by A; A1 will be
awarded the bonus with no players along the lane lines. There has been a change
of possession and the point of interruption is the goal by Team A, therefore Team
B will be awarded a throw-in anywhere along the end line. (2-10-1a; 2-10-5)

2.10.1 SITUATION F: A1 is fouled. The scorer informs the official that Team B
has committed ten team fouls and that the two-free-throw penalty is in effect. The
official administers the free throw and states and indicates "two" throws. The first
free throw is unsuccessful and the second is successful. B1 has the ball out of
bounds for the throw-in. The scorer informs the official that there were only nine
team fouls on Team B and that the penalty should have been one and one. RULING:
The error is discovered within the correctable error timeframe, and shall be
corrected. The second free throw is canceled and play is resumed at the point of
interruption. Since “no goal” has been scored, play is resumed with an alternating-
possession throw-in at a spot nearest to where the ball was located when the
stoppage occurred. (2-10-1b; 2-10-6; 4-36-2c)

Situation F is an unmerited free throw and, thus, doesn't apply to the original question.

Exam / Case Play
 

For the Case play:

There is no team control during the shot prior to the rebound, therefore the rebound by B4 is not a change in possession. The rebound established the first possession since the error was made.


Exam
For #22, I would say that team A is entitled to the throw in, when the error was recognized. Therefore since there is a change in possession (Team B --> Team A), the lane is cleared for Team A's foul shot and ball is put back in play at the POI.

What you have above as F is E in my rules. F in mine is the ap arrow play. They both show that when the other team is entitled to inbound the ball that is enough. They dont have to actually pick up the ball. as you noted, it would be too late to correct the error if ball was at their disposal.

Outdated Casebook ...
 

Sorry, I'm using an outdated casebook from my hard drive.

no big deal. the arrow play should be somewhere near it.

Getting Closer To The Truth ...
 

Sounds logical.

I can be persuaded to lean this way if I can see a few more citations

I Have Always Depended Upon The Kindness Of Strangers (Blanche DuBois) ...
 

If somebody can help me get a 2015-16 PDF NFHS Rulebook, and Casebook, onto my hard drive, I would really appreciate it.

We've had this debate before. Like it or not, the published NFHS interpretation is that the error occurs when the officials allow play to continue, which they do by letting players enter the lane to rebound during the free throw when there is no team control. So Team B getting the rebound is the first possession. This is why in the case play, when the error is discovered with Team B still in control, no change in possession has occurred.

I do agree with you that pending possession is assumed for CE purposes (i.e. the violation in the OP case, and your AP arrow example was also spot-on). Several case plays support this assumption.

By the way, the case play you claim is "incorrect" has been around a lot longer than three years. I remember being stumped by it as a rookie before the '97-'98 season. Perhaps they removed it for a few years, but if so, it had enough staying power to make a comeback. It is a good interpretation; just because it's counterintuitive doesn't give you the authority to declare it incorrect and confuse the multitude of younger officials who use this site to study and learn, especially this time of year.

Note: I realize that just the other day I disagreed with the "likely tenths of a second" interp. Go ahead, lay it on me.... But hey, at least that play is an old interp that was never re-issued nor transitioned to the case book. What I'm talking about here is a firmly established and published case play.

We're Getting Hotter ...
 

You sound confident in your interpretation. Please convince me further with a few citations.

I'll consult my previous rules and case books for the exact year the dubious case play appeared.

Meanwhile, I will disagree with your defense of the ruling in that Case Play. Let me put forth my understanding of how this should work. Since we agree with the premise that a team being entitled to a throw-in or FT constitutes team possession for CE purposes, this should make sense to you.

At the time of the error, which is incorrectly permitting the ball to remain live following the first FT, Team A is entitled to another FT. That means that when Team B rebounds the miss, team possession has now switched from Team A (entitled to FT) to Team B (grabbed the rebound). Therefore, the POI should be used to resume and Team B should be awarded a throw-in near the division line.

Sure. Admittedly many of these cases involve a pending throw-in following a made basket vice a violation, but the assumption that possession has changed remains constant:

NFHS:
2.10.1D / 2.10.1F (as already discussed)

NCAAM (from the 2013-14 book):
AR 27
AR 28
AR 34 (same as 2.10.1A, basically)

.....and I'm sure there are a few in the NCAAW case book as well.

Not really because I don't agree that a team entitled to a FT constitutes team possession for CE purposes. Only a throw-in. There are several case plays that deal with the latter (I listed a few for BillyMac), but I don't know of any that deal with the former. If you can find one or more that do, I might at least acknowledge your argument instead of outright dismissing it. :rolleyes:

Possession begins when the infraction occurs. The ball, by rule, at that point, belongs to the team due the ball due the infraction. We just administer it at the time of the throw in.