What options does a coach have?
 

Three errors on team-control fouls (well, two errors and a near-error), two different nights. What options does a coach have to get a crew to stop for a second and think things through?

1. A1 has the ball in the backcourt in transition. A2 fouls B3 in the backcourt. Officials line up for a 1-and-1. Coach A gets T's attention and says "Team control" while a couple of assistants give the player-control signal with their hand behind their head. T looks at the bench briefly then goes back to watching the free throws. B3 makes both free throws. Coach A says something to T (now L) again as they come up the floor. He blows the whistle and says "Yes, we're going to talk about it." In the end, they wipe off the free throws and give the ball to B at the designated spot nearest the foul.

The next week:
2. Near the end of the half, A11 fouls B12 while trying to get an offensive rebound. The table signals the 1-and-1 and the official shakes them off. The bench asks for the 1-and-1 and he's told it doesn't apply. They continue with the throw in and the half ends a minute later with a couple baskets made in the meantime. The officials meet at midcourt and have an extended discussion, then go over to the scorer and continue their discussion with her. I wasn't privy, but I got to believe they realized their mistake now that it was too late.

And I believe this because:
3. In 4Q, B23 fouls A24 away from the ball on the offensive end (Team B had control). The non-calling officials walk down to the other end with the ball and start to line up for free throws. The calling official (who was the one who shook off the 1-and-1 in the first half) starts to join them, but then realizes his mistake and clearly says to Coach B "This was definitely a team control foul" and brings the ball back for a throw-in.

So what can a coach do if he knows a mistake is being made, especially on something like free throws to get the crew to slow down and think about things? I put a few search terms in the NFHS online rulebook to see if he could call a time-out for a rules review like in football, and I don't see it.

Nothing. Hope he gets better officials in the future.

Correctable Error, Timing, Scoring, Alternating Possession Mistake ...
 

5-8-4: Time-out occurs and the clock, if running, shall be stopped when an
official: Responds to the scorer’s signal to grant a coach’s request that a
correctable error, as in 2-10, or a timing, scoring or alternating-possession
mistake be prevented or rectified. The appeal to the official shall be
presented at the scorer’s table where a coach of each team may be present.

5-11-4: Only one 60-second time-out is charged (or one 30-second
time-out, if that is the only type of time-out remaining) in 5-8-4 regardless
of the amount of time consumed when no correction is made.
EXCEPTION: No time-out is charged: If, in 5-8-4, the error or mistake is prevented or rectified.

5.8.4 SITUATION A: The appeal of the coach of Team A to an official, made while the ball is dead and the clock is stopped, is made when it is too late for correction of an error. RULING: Following the conference, the 60-second time-out remains charged to Team A and they are given the privilege of utilizing whatever time remains. The official will terminate the discussion with the coach immediately upon making a decision. If the discussion takes more than one minute, only one 60-second time-out is charged. (2-10-2; 5-11-4)

5.8.4 SITUATION B: The head coach from Team A requests a 60-second time-out to rectify a timing error. The referee grants the time-out to investigate the matter, but determines that no correction can be made. The scorer then informs the referee that Team A cannot be charged a 60-second time-out as they only have one 30-second time-out remaining. RULING: Since they have no 60-second time-outs remaining and there was no timing correction made, Team A will be charged their remaining 30-second time-out regardless of the amount of time consumed. (5-11-4)

2-10: Officials may correct an error if a rule is inadvertently set
aside and results in:
a. Failure to award a merited free throw.
b. Awarding an unmerited free throw.
c. Permitting a wrong player to attempt a free throw.
d. Attempting a free throw at the wrong basket.
e. Erroneously counting or canceling a score.
ART. 2 In order to correct any of the officials’ errors listed in Article
1, such error must be recognized by an official no later than during the first
dead ball after the clock has properly started.
ART. 3 If in Article 1e the error is made while the clock is running and
the ball dead, it must be recognized by an official before the second live
ball.

Team Control Foul ...
 

Wrong signal. It wasn't a player control foul. It was a team control foul and the assistants should have been giving a team control foul signal.

https://image.slidesharecdn.com/1337...?cb=1411779680

Of course, the officials may not have spotted them anyway, they're supposed to be sitting down.

You'd be wrong here in Ohio. PC and TC signal is arm behind the head here.

Use rule book terminology - and be specific. "That's a Team Control foul (you said that) and they shouldn't be shooting FTs. You will have a correctable error if you continue."

What options does a coach have?
 

So close. At that point, should have been at the point of interruption to correct the error, not the designated spot nearest the foul.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well, so much for that nonsensical philosophy that coaches should ensure CE situations don't occur, otherwise they deserve getting the short end of the stick the CE rules are applied.

Where did that come from? I've never heard of that before.

A theme in this forum from conversations all the way back to when I joined this group. Folks reason that CE rules are written a certain way is to ensure coaches are honest and point out the error to the officials and if they don't it's their fault when they get the short end of the stick (i.e.: team gets free throws they aren't entitled to, CE is recognized while other team is in possession, their free throws get wiped off, and POI is a throw-in for the opposing team, so the team that got foul essentially loses both points and possession).

Whether that's a *reason* or not, it is an *effect*, and, in my view, a good one.

A lot of good it did in the OP. It's always been a cop out, IMO, so officials can blame others when a team gets screwed out of possession.

Billy: Thanks for the rules citations. I don't know how I missed them. So it would have been possible for the coach to call a timeout to slow the crew down. He just risks them still not agreeing with him and losing the timeout.

Somebody mentioned that Ohio doesn't use the book signals for this, and it was in Ohio. Note that the head coach did properly use the phrase "team control." I was using those phrases to describe what I saw as best I could using rule book terminology.

They were.

If officials blame others for missing this, then I agree. If officials thank others for pointing it out and preventing a CF, then I disagree.

My experience has been the latter.

Risk ...
 

Bingo.

https://tse3.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.Q...=0&w=300&h=300

Well, the errors in this situation are misapplication of the rules directly by the officials. That isn't the kind of situation I've ever referred to.

My prior point on having the rules such that it motivates a team to point out the error are based on a scorekeeping error providing the officials with an incorrect foul count.

When the officials simply screw it up, not much can be said about that.

Yep, on a rule issue you are up a creek. Especially in a no-protest state as Ohio is. Hopefully we never get to the point where we have to rule books in our pocket or at the table like football or baseball and softball had gotten to. Though I'm sure we've all had cases where we'd love to show coaches the rule book.

Correctable Errors ...
 

I'm having trouble following some of the debate in this thread, but I will say this about correctable errors. Forty years ago, when I was taking classes preparing for the written rules exam, we were told to know the correctable error rule up, down, backward, forward, and sideways; that it would definitely be on the exam, and would probably be one of the most difficult questions on the exam.

Is it a perfect rule? Is it easy to follow? Should the list of correctable errors be expanded, or more limited? Should the time window be expanded, or more limited? Should the time limit be easier to understand, especially in regard to change of possession? How about do-overs? Should correctable errors be more like "bookkeeping errors" with the ability to be corrected at any time (with definite knowledge) in the officials' jurisdiction? Can there be too many correctable errors?

And most importantly, is it fair?

Bottom line, the correctable error rule, warts and all, has been around for a long time, and in my forty years there has been no major change in the rule.

Some might not think so, but it appears that the NFHS likes the rule, or at least tolerates it, as it is presently written.

https://tse2.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.C...=0&w=300&h=300

I do not think extending the time limit is practical as scorers will have to keep more detailed records and officials would have to have better memories.

As an official turned into a coach (the dark side had cookies), all I can do is ask/question what is going on. I have had situations free throws were going to be awarded on a TC foul, or not awarded when it was not a TC foul. All I can do is get the attention of the nearest official and ask the "right" question - "Hey Bill! Wasn't that a Team Control foul? Should they be shooting?" At that point its in their control...I would like to say that on the few occasions where they have continued on and shot/not shot, I have made no snotty comments...I would like to say that, but not sure I can truthfully say that.

Do You Remember (September, Earth, Wind, And Fire, 1978)...
 

Playing Devil's advocate, the time limit is fully extended (corrected at any time in the officials' jurisdiction) for "bookkeeping errors".

Visiting score keeper at the end of an apparent one point loss before the officials leave the court:"Hey. There was only one successful three pointer in the entire game, by the visiting team, back in the first period, both of you signaled the three, but the home scorekeeper only marked it as two points. Remember?".

Thats why we have the books checked at halftime before going into the locker room and in the last minutes/seconds of the fourth if the game is close. If it would happen, all the parent scorekeepers in the crowd would of been having conniption fits two seconds after the goal was miscredited.

This. It’s why I never really worry about bookkeeping errors that involve the score. Help is all around me. Fouls? Not so much. Gotta pay close attention to the team foul count, and sometimes team member foul counts, too (the home scorer can be sneaky at times). But the score? Nope.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I have had a game where the visible scoreboard indicated a tie after 4 quarters. About 30 seconds into OT, the table buzzed and the scorer indicated the game hadn't actually been tied.

Yes, we adjudicated it correctly.

A Truly Rare Bird ...
 

I wonder how many officials have had such a situation and ruled correctly?

5-7-4: Once the ball becomes live in the extra period, it will be
played even though a correction in the fourth quarter score is made.

5.7.4 SITUATION: The score is tied at the end of regulation time. During the overtime period, the official scorer informs the referee that Team A had an additional point in the fourth quarter that was not counted. In (a), the referee reviews the scorebook and recognizes where a point was not properly credited to Team A; or (b) the referee does not have definite knowledge that a point was not credited to Team A. RULING: In (a), the referee adds a point to Team A's score. In (b), the referee does not add a point to Team A's score. In either case, the referee continues the overtime period to completion. (2-11-11)

Not in central Ohio. We give the player control signal on all offensive fouls. It's used as a way to communicate that they're are no free throws.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

The Buckeye State ...
 

Man, you Ohio guys are really serious about your signals.

Still waiting for Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. to chime in. I bet he can't wait to yank my chain.

We're the best! Lol

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

In Oregon, we authorize the team control signal for pc fouls.

At one time, there was a reason to have different signals. Now, they are treated exactly the same so there is no good reason to have two signals. The only difference is that one is committed by the player with the ball and that difference is entirely irrelevant.

We chose the TC signal because it is a much better signal in almost every way.

Lack Of Consistency ...
 

We have about 325 guys on our local board and also have about 325 different player control foul signals.

Team Control Fouls ...
 

I'm not sure that I follow? I can't speak in regard to NFHS, but IAABO only added the team control foul signal when the NFHS decided not to shoot fouls committed by a team in control. I don't believe that there was a team control foul signal before then (not needed in the rules penalties, i.e., illegal screen, give the blocking foul signal and shoot the free throws if in the bonus). I believe the only change since then has been to add team control to throwins (only for foul purposes).

What was the reason for two different signals, and how were these two fouls treated differently back then (after the rule change (don't shoot)) as opposed to now?

Before the rule change (don't shoot) I don't believe that there was a team control foul signal (not needed in the rules penalties).

Are Two Signals Really Needed ???
 

I agree with Camron Rust, but are there any Forum members smarter than me (that's almost all Forum members) who can come up with a situation where there is an actual need for two different signals (penalties, blarge, continuous motion, live ball/dead ball, airborne shooters, counting baskets, etc.)?

This is not a fun quiz, I actually can't think of such a situation.

Can we eliminate the player control foul signal without any unintended consequences?

Some table personnel aren't very bright and/or observant. Does the team control signal sometimes simply look like the official is pointing the other way?

*shrugs*

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

Not a real reason
 

The only thing I can come up with is that player control cancels the shot but team control does not. Not sure why you would need an extra signal -- just waive it off as you report...

On a side note: Many officials in our area (especially vets/college guys) tend to just use the punch for both at the spot and only put the hand behind the head when they report. Of course, they are quick to chastise the newbies when they do the same -- do as I say not as I do!

Dead As A Doornail ...
 

A team control foul doesn't cancel the shot? Are you sure?

There is no exception (ball does not become dead until the try ends, or until the airborne shooter returns to the floor) for Article 4: The ball becomes dead, or remains dead, when: A player-control or team-control foul occurs.

Exceptions (ball does not become dead until the try ends, or until the airborne shooter returns to the floor) are only made for articles 5, 6, 7, and 9.

6-7: The ball becomes dead, or remains dead, when:
ART. 1 A goal, as in 5-1, is made.
ART. 2 It is apparent the free throw will not be successful on a:
a. Free throw which is to be followed by another free throw.
b. Free throw which is to be followed by a throw-in.
ART. 3 A held ball occurs, or the ball lodges between the backboard
and ring or comes to rest on the flange.
ART. 4 A player-control or team-control foul occurs.
ART. 5 An official’s whistle is blown (see exceptions a and b below).
ART. 6 Time expires for a quarter or extra period (see exception a
below).
ART. 7 A foul, other than player-control or team-control, occurs (see
exceptions a, b and c below).
ART. 8 A free-throw violation by the throwing team, as in 9-1, occurs.
ART. 9 A violation, as in 9-2 through 13, occurs (see exception d
below).
EXCEPTION: The ball does not become dead until the try or tap ends, or
until the airborne shooter returns to the floor, when:
a. Article 5, 6, or 7 occurs while a try or tap for a field goal is in
flight.
b. Article 5 or 7 occurs while a try for a free throw is in flight.
c. Article 7 occurs by any opponent of a player who has started a try
or tap for goal (is in the act of shooting) before the foul occurred,
provided time did not expire before the ball was in flight. The trying
motion must be continuous and begins after the ball comes to rest in
the player’s hand(s) on a try or touches the hand(s) on a tap, and is
completed when the ball is clearly in flight. The trying motion may
include arm, foot or body movements used by the player when
throwing the ball at his/her basket.
d. Article 9 as in 9-3-3 or 9-13-1, occurs by an opponent.

https://tse3.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.X...=0&w=233&h=164

So I got another one, and I'm curious how you all would have handled it.

A1 commits a common foul on B1 for team A's 9th foul of the half. The official reports the foul and signals for 2 shots. As he heads opposite table, he signals 2 shots to his partner. When he turns around, the table tries to get his attention that it should be 1-and-1. Partner tells the players 2 shots and bounces the ball to the shooter. Now, the timer is hitting the horn to stop the action, but nobody blows their whistle. B1 takes the shot and misses it. As expected nobody plays the rebound and the ball is given back to L who then looks at what the table wants and discovers the error.

Honestly, it depends. If the officials feel the entire process was altered by the horn, they could say the shot does not count. If they feel nothing was disrupted, then you could go to the AP arrow because of the inaction of the players. I really do not see another way then these two options. This is why we slow down on FTs to make sure we are doing the right thing.

Peace

That's just poor officiating and game awareness. If the table is hitting the horn prior to us administering a free throw in my game, we are going to stop what we are doing and see what's up.

When I'm crew chief, I explicitly tell the table not to let us do something we're not supposed to be doing (throw-in instead of free throw and vice versa or wrong number of shots).

Remedy for your play is obviously the AP arrow.

There's a case play on this, without the table horn. If "no one" reacts, go to the arrow. If "everyone" reacts, play on (or give the ball to whoever got the rebound, if play is then stopped)

This is what I was expecting. I suspect they had JRutledge's thought that the horn was a problem because they re-administered as a 1-and-1.

Which is really my overall point with this thread. We all get in a rush and make mistakes. Sometimes I just get on a roll in what I'm doing and overlook obvious errors. Sometimes, we just need to slow down and pay better attention.

Let's Go To The Videotape ...