CE offense loses a posession

[Sharpshooternes]

What am I missing in the CE situation. A is fouled, should get the ball out of bounds, shoot FTs, then discovered, then B gets the ball? Doesn't seem fair.

A1 is fouled prior to the bonus, but erroneously A1 is awarded the one-and-one penalty. The error is discovered after (e) B1 has secured the rebound following A1’s unsuccessful second free throw.

Ruling(e): the successful free throws are canceled. Play resumes with a throw-in awarded to Team B since Team B had the ball inbounds when the game was interrupted for the correction.

[deecee]

What's confusing. You correct the error and go to POI. The correction is for unmerited FT's, thats the CE.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Sharpshooternes

What am I missing in the CE situation. A is fouled, should get the ball out of bounds, shoot FTs, then discovered, then B gets the ball? Doesn't seem fair.

I don't know that the rules makers had this in mind when they wrote the rule, but it helps me to remember it:

The rule is such that BOTH teams should do what they can to get the ruling right before play continues. Otherwise, what looks like an advantage ("hey -- good news -- we are getting FTs instead of a throw-in") can quickly turn into a disadvantage ("what do you mean we lose the points and the ball!?")

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

I don't know that the rules makers had this in mind when they wrote the rule, but it helps me to remember it:

The rule is such that BOTH teams should do what they can to get the ruling right before play continues. Otherwise, what looks like an advantage ("hey -- good news -- we are getting FTs instead of a throw-in") can quickly turn into a disadvantage ("what do you mean we lose the points and the ball!?")

I never have, and never will, buy that line of thinking. NEVER. It is ludicrous logic, IMO. That is penalizing a team b/c the crew and table screwed up. It is not the coaching staffs' responsibility. I could just as easily say that it is advantageous for the defensive team to allow the FTs and then after they inbound the ball notify the table and crew that there should not have been any FTs. The team shooting FTs could just as easily assume that they missed annotating an opponent's foul on their own stat sheet. And what about visiting teams that do not bring a scorer with them (I've seen plenty of HS and JuCo teams who don't travel with any type of bookkeeping personnel). They are trusting that the table and officials are competently doing their jobs.

[bob jenkins]

Feel free to propose different logic /reasons for the rule. As I said, this helps me remember it. Too many try to revert to the "what's fair" provision -- and get the ruling screwed up.

[BryanV21]

Personally, I don't care what the rule is... I'm going by it. However, isn't part of the error not giving Team A a throw in? And not having done that should be corrected?

Admittedly, I would have messed this up before reading this. I would have cancelled the made free throw and given Team A a throw-in at the spot nearest where the foul occurred.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

Personally, I don't care what the rule is... I'm going by it. However, isn't part of the error not giving Team A a throw in? And not having done that should be corrected?

Admittedly, I would have messed this up before reading this. I would have cancelled the made free throw and given Team A a throw-in at the spot nearest where the foul occurred.

Your errors are a-e. The error here is awarding unmerited FTs. (b) Cancel the FTs and go to POI. Correctable errors are bad. many times somebody is going to get screwed. It makes me communicate better with scorers and periodically check if all are on same page.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

Personally, I don't care what the rule is... I'm going by it. However, isn't part of the error not giving Team A a throw in? And not having done that should be corrected?

Admittedly, I would have messed this up before reading this. I would have cancelled the made free throw and given Team A a throw-in at the spot nearest where the foul occurred.

It's why I am very diligent in keeping track of Team Fouls. On a regular basis I am having the table correct the TF count on the scoreboard. Some folks think it is not our job to do so, but this rule is exactly why a good official should.

[BryanV21]

I think I found in the rule book where you would do this, as there's nothing that simply says "cancel the FTs and go to the POI".

2-10-4 says that "the activity during it (the unmerited FT), other than unsporting, flagrant, intentional, and technical fouls, shall be cancelled". And 2-10-5 says that "consumed time and additional activity...shall not be nullified". Therefore, in this case the made FT is cancelled per 2-10-4, and the fact Team B secured the rebound/gained possession is not nullified per 2-10-5.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

It's why I am very diligent in keeping track of Team Fouls. On a regular basis I am having the table correct the TF count on the scoreboard. Some folks think it is not our job to do so, but this rule is exactly why a good official should.

I agree with you for the most part, but tables often screw this up or give us the wrong information. We should ask questions when getting close, but the table people do give us information wrong even when you think "you" are right.

I once had two CE situations in one week (over 15 years ago) and both times we questioned the table about what was on the scoreboard, only to have them tell us we were to do something wrong both times. Actually these situations helped me learn the rules because the table was not giving us the proper information.

This is not like football where we can write down our penalties each time. I guess we could, but that would require a lot from us.

Peace

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

I think I found in the rule book where you would do this, as there's nothing that simply says "cancel the FTs and go to the POI".

2-10-4 says that "the activity during it (the unmerited FT), other than unsporting, flagrant, intentional, and technical fouls, shall be cancelled". And 2-10-5 says that "consumed time and additional activity...shall not be nullified". Therefore, in this case the made FT is cancelled per 2-10-4, and the fact Team B secured the rebound/gained possession is not nullified per 2-10-5.

I gave you the condensed version for the OP. 2-10-6 says POI.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

I never have, and never will, buy that line of thinking. NEVER. It is ludicrous logic, IMO. That is penalizing a team b/c the crew and table screwed up.

You could make the same argument if you give the ball to B. B earned a rebound and has the ball. If you give the ball back to A, you take that away from B.

Either way you go, once the ball is back in play, one team will get something taken away.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

You could make the same argument if you give the ball to B. B earned a rebound and has the ball. If you give the ball back to A, you take that away from B.

What rebound? The free throw that was rebounded was taken away.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by just another ref

What rebound? The free throw that was rebounded was taken away.

But, it was rebounded. B earned the ball at that moment. Why should A get it any more than B?

[WhistlesAndStripes]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

Personally, I don't care what the rule is... I'm going by it. However, isn't part of the error not giving Team A a throw in? And not having done that should be corrected?

Admittedly, I would have messed this up before reading this. I would have cancelled the made free throw and given Team A a throw-in at the spot nearest where the foul occurred.

Would you have also put time back on the clock that elapsed after the free throws were completed?