Is This a CE?
 

The Play:
Team A shoots the ball, and it looks like Team B may have been guilty of goaltending, but no call is made. Team B gets the rebound and heads to the other end of the court and misses a quick shot attempt, which is rebounded by Team A. Team A goes to their end and misses another quick shot attempt, and Team B gets the rebound and slowly starts towards their basket.

At this time I notice that a player for Team B is down, so I blow my whistle and stop play. While the player is being tended to by the trainer, my partners are talking to each other. Shortly after their talk one of them tells the scorekeeper to score the initial shot by Team A due to goaltending.

A minute or so later there's a timeout, so I'm able to talk to my partner that told the scorekeeper to give Team A those points for goaltending. He tells me that it was a correctable error, citing the "erroneously counting or cancelling a basket". I tell him I don't think that was right, but we'd look into it.

The Aftermath:
After the game I grabbed the case book and he grabbed the rule book.

According to 2.10.1 in the case book, basket interference is a correctable error. Since that and goaltending are violations, I tell my partner that I guess he was right.

While he reads aloud the five correctable errors I focus on the words "counting or canceling a score". The official in this case neither "counted" nor "canceled" a score... he just didn't make the violation/goaltending call. Which makes me believe retroactively calling the goaltending was incorrect.

Thoughts?

If you didn't call GT when it occurred it didn't happen. Your case book play (2.10.1Situation I), have the officials calling the violation when it occurs, then awarding or canceling points. If you don't call a violation when it occurs you can't go back after further review and change it.

:(

My reading comprehension skills need work. I read that case play all wrong.

Goaltending wasn't called
 

I believe the officials need to blow the whistle and call goaltending to score the basket. It would be a correctable error if an official called goaltending and play was stopped, but the scorer failed to award two points and then at a later time before the officials left the court it was realized that the scorekeeper never recorded the two poiints.

The official has to make a call. Goaltending/basket interference. once the call is made if he fails to award two or three points when the defense was the team committing the violation it is a correctable error. Also correctable if he calls goaltending/basket interference and awards points when the offense was the team that violated. they both must be fixed within rule's limits.

When the referee makes a proper call and counts the basket but the scorer fails to put the points up or in book that is a bookeeping error that can be corrected at any time before officials leave confines etc...

Yours isn't a correctable error, it's a scoring error that can be corrected at any point before the officials' jurisdiction ends.

A CE would be the officials calling GT or BI, then telling the scorer not to award the points for some reason. It's not a common scenario.

The OP is not a CE.

I truly hope that this wasn't a varsity game. :(
I would suspend this crew for two weeks.

Hopefully our assignor doesn't feel the same way.

Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk

You probably don't see a lot of goaltending in Freshman girls . . . my guess would be varsity lol

roflmao

You guys are on a roll today, just what I needed this morning.

Typical and not surprising response coming from you. Whack any parents lately?

I don't know that I'd suspend them, but this is a pretty basic rule they messed up.

Maybe I'm overthinking this, but ...
This wasn't a correctable error to begin with -- it was just a missed call. However, when the official told the table to count the score, does that create a correctable error situation for erroneously counting a score?

I suspect that in that event, Bryanv21 was prolly thinking to himself "...this doesn't seem right to do". But he may have been less inclined to voice his disagreement because his partners were perhaps more senior than him--though not necessarily more knowledgeable--and sort of bulled their way towards a rationalization. Did you ask whoever the T or C was, why they did not make the initial GT violation call?