Correctable Error Question

[UNIgiantslayers]

We had a CE situation last night, unfortunately. This was a sub varsity game that I did with one guy who is really more suited to doing AAU ball (P1), and another guy who's been retired for a while and only does sub varsity stuff these days (P2) but was a pretty knowledgeable guy and seemed from my impression to know what he was doing. Team A is in 2 shot bonus with the 10th foul on team B. We didn't catch that A1 should have gotten 2 free throws, and he missed the front end of a 1 & 1. B came down with the rebound and as they're crossing half court, we realized our error and blew it dead. We awarded 2nd free throw. Here's where it gets hairy. P2 was insistent that A1 shoot the second free throw with the lane cleared, and we give B the ball at POI. P1 wasn't a lot of help here because he knows the basic rules but it seems the more complicated ones are not his strong suit. I said that we shoot it with players on lane as with any 2nd FT. CE rule is a bit ambiguous to me for some reason, it says:

If an error is corrected, play shall be resumed from the point at which it was interrupted to rectify the error, unless it involves awarding a merited free throw(s) and and there has been no change of team possession since the error was made, in which case play shall resume as any free throw attempt(s).

I just want to make sure that I'm interpreting this correctly after looking at the rule. With any other CE, you go to POI except for merited 2nd free throw which you shoot with players on lane. The only confusion I have is that team B had gotten the rebound, so possession changed since the error was made right? Did I incorrectly interpret this rule in game, and P2 was correct with going to POI possession for team B? Had team A gotten the rebound and we blew it dead, then we would have shot with players on the line? I'm not sure why I'm having such a hard time sorting this out in my head, but any help is appreciated.

You should have shot the 2nd merited free throw with the lane full, a defensive rebound off a FT by Team B does not change "possession" for purposes of the CE rule. Don't have the reference with me, I'm sure someone else can post it.

[BigCat]

2.10.1 sit A is the exact same play. They say B rebounding and going up floor is no change in team possession. The only way i have been able to rationalize this play is to say that the error occurs after the rebound when officials don't stop B and give the other FT. Thus the "no change" in possession.

Originally Posted by BigCat

The only way i have been able to rationalize this play is to say that the error occurs after the rebound when officials don't stop B and give the other FT. Thus the "no change" in possession.

Or, no one has possession of free throw and thus there is no change of possession when a free throw is missed and either team gets the rebound. This is also why we go to the AP arrow for simultaneous free throw violations, even though the defending team has a clear rebounding advantage.

[bob jenkins]

NCAAW answer -- just the opposite of FED. (IIRC, the FED case play used to match the NCAAW answer. The FED case play wsa changed about 10 years ago -- incorrectly, I believe).

DATE:

3/2/2015

RULE:

Rule 2, Art. 5, and A.R 29

QUESTION:

Could you please clarify a situation that occurred in a game I observed. B1 push A1. A1 is entitled to two shots(double bonus). The official tell A1 one and one. the time on clock is 17.1(regulation). Team B1 rebound, pass to B2 who dribble toward the division line, when the officials stop the game due to clock not properly starting. The table tell officials A1 should have been shooting two shots. Its the correctable error frame. A1 will shoot the second shot

Question A) Will A1 shoot the second shot with everyone on the line or B) will A1 shoot with no one on the line and give ball to team B where the game was stop to fix the timing error.

I am trying to figure out if Rule 2, Art 5 consist with Question B

ANSWER:

Great question, because there are a few moving parts. When A1 failed to shoot the second free throw to which she was entitled, this was a correctable error (Rule 2-12.1.a). B1 rebounded the live ball, passed it to B2 and at that time the officials stop play because the game clock failed to start. As this is the first dead ball since the error, the officials are within the window to correct the error (Rule 2-12.2). Because there was a change of team control, A1 will shoot her second free throw with no players occupying marked lane spaces and play will resume at the point of interruption, which will be a throw-in by Team B at the out of bounds spot nearest to where play was stopped for the timing mistake. (Rule 2-12.5, 4-27.1.c). Lastly, the officials will need to determine the correct time on the game clock (17.1 seconds minus the amount of time that team B was in control).

[UNIgiantslayers]

So I was correct on the court. I for some reason was thinking that with the ball being made live when the official gives it to the free thrower, that indicates possession. Makes sense. Thanks for the help.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BigCat

2.10.1 sit A is the exact same play.

2.10.1 SITUATION A: A1 is fouled and entitled to two free throws under the
double-bonus rule, however, the officials indicate a one-and-one bonus situation.
The first attempt is unsuccessful; B4 rebounds the ball and passes it up to B2.
The error is discovered with B2 in possession of the live ball near mid-court.
RULING: The error is discovered within the correctable error timeframe, and shall
be corrected. Team B securing the rebound and passing to a teammate constitutes
no change in team possession. Therefore, A1 will receive the merited free
throw with players on the lane and play resumes from the free throw. (2-10-1a)

[Nevadaref]

Whoever changed the NFHS play ruling did so incorrectly. The opposite team rebounding a missed FT is obviously a change in possession. C'mon this isn't hard. There are only two teams. A change in possession is when one team had the ball and then the other team gets it.
Been severely disappointed in some rulings issued by the NFHS staff over the past few years.

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Whoever changed the NFHS play ruling did so incorrectly.

No doubt the same person that felt that an offensive player in the backcourt who catches a ball before it bounces that had been deflected in the frontcourt....well, you get the idea.

The NFHS overthinks things.

[deecee]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Whoever changed the NFHS play ruling did so incorrectly. The opposite team rebounding a missed FT is obviously a change in possession. C'mon this isn't hard. There are only two teams. A change in possession is when one team had the ball and then the other team gets it.
Been severely disappointed in some rulings issued by the NFHS staff over the past few years.

+1. I don't think they know the definition of change and/or possession.

[UNIgiantslayers]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

2.10.1 SITUATION A: A1 is fouled and entitled to two free throws under the
double-bonus rule, however, the officials indicate a one-and-one bonus situation.
The first attempt is unsuccessful; B4 rebounds the ball and passes it up to B2.
The error is discovered with B2 in possession of the live ball near mid-court.
RULING: The error is discovered within the correctable error timeframe, and shall
be corrected. Team B securing the rebound and passing to a teammate constitutes
no change in team possession. Therefore, A1 will receive the merited free
throw with players on the lane and play resumes from the free throw. (2-10-1a)

I should have known that would be a case book play. Common sense wise it makes no sense but that's the rule so there you go.

[BlueDevilRef]

The ncaaW rule does seem to make the most sense. And in my narrow mind, would make this particular CE less egregious. They always suck but at least in the ncaaW case play, team B doesn't lose the ball once we get it fixed.

[Camron Rust]

I agree with Bob. For no reason, the play was flipped to say this was not a change of possession. It makes little sense now. Before, the result was at least somewhat equitable.