Correctable Error

[BillyMac]

Best way to handle correctable errors is to avoid them.

Unfortunately, especially in middle school games with no team fouls on the scoreboard, sometimes the scorekeepers (sometimes students) are asleep at the switch.

I wish that I got a dollar every time I asked a middle school scorekeeper, "Is it one and one?", or, "How many team fouls now?".

If so, I would be spending my retirement years in my villa in Tuscany.

[Raymond]

This was you who asked this question, correct?

"Is this treated as any other "wrong way" basket, two points counting for the team that "owns" the basket?"

So are we supposed to take it now that you are being disingenuous when you ask a question? Your goal is really to be some kind of passive aggressive proxy for other officials who, in your estimation, need guidance?

My most highly successful mentor has a pet peeve. That peeve is people asking questions they obviously already know the answer to just to draw attention to themselves.



Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

"Is this treated as any other "wrong way" basket, two points counting for the team that "owns" the basket?" So are we supposed to take it now that you are being disingenuous when you ask a question? Your goal is really to be some kind of passive aggressive proxy for other officials who, in your estimation, need guidance? ... people asking questions they obviously already know the answer to just to draw attention to themselves.

2.10.4 SITUATION B: The officials erroneously permit A1 to shoot technical foul free throws at Team B’s basket; A1 makes both free throws. When the error is discovered, the time frame for the correctable error (a) has not passed; or (b) has passed. RULING: In (a), cancel the successful free throws by A1 and administer the free throws again at the correct basket. In (b), the free throws by A1 shall not be canceled and count toward Team A’s point total.

While not a perfect description, Raymond came pretty close.

Until Mike Goodwin posted it, I was unable to specifically pinpoint 2.10.4 SITUATION B, but I was somehow "aware" of the interpretation, possibly through my original training forty years ago, or through my service on my local board's rules training committee several years ago. Or it could have been mentioned by one of local interpreters at one, or more, of our 200 local board meetings over the past forty years. Or maybe at one of the many seminars I've attended. Maybe even here on the Forum.

So that nebulous, "fuzzy" idea (not counting free throws points at the wrong basket for the non-shooting team) was in the back recesses of my mind as I pondered the need for free throws at the wrong basket to be a correctable error. Why correct it if we're never going to count the the points for the "wrong" team? I was conflicted, and confused.

I was 100% certain that a team’s own basket was the one into which its players try to throw the ball, but I was "fuzzy" (but still somewhat "aware") of some type of exception.

My big mistake was looking for guidance solely in the rulebook, and not including the casebook in my research. I was quite pleased when I finally came up with 4-5 (mistake by officials resulting in a team going in the wrong direction), but it still left unanswered my question regarding the need for free throws at the wrong basket to be a correctable error. After finding the 4-5 rule citation, I should have followed up with a deep dive into the casebook, but I didn't.

I'm not proud of this, but I stopped reading the entire casebook annually cover to cover a few years back, now only reading it when I have a specific written rule exam question, or a specific "real game" question.

Luckily Mike Goodwin came to the rescue. His citation of 2.10.4 SITUATION B was the cherry on top of the hot fudge sundae, confirming something that I was already aware of (but was unable to confirm with a citation).

My question, "Is this treated as any other "wrong way" basket ... points counting for the team that "owns" the basket?", was not asked to draw any attention to me, but rather an attempt to confirm, with the help of the Forum, something that I was already aware of. It was for my own education, and possibly the education of others.

Evil plan accomplished.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

....
My sincere question, "Is this treated as any other "wrong way" basket ... points counting for the team that "owns" the basket?", was not asked to draw any attention to me, but rather an attempt to confirm, with the help of the Forum, something that I was already aware of. It was for my own education, and possibly the education of others.

Evil plan accomplished.

As I've already stated, no one else was unclear about that. And if you were unsure after 40 years of officiating and 15+ years in this forum, that is inexcusable.

Another thing, if you are going debate ad nauseum about a certain rule, you should at least read all the relevant case plays for that rule.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

As I've already stated, no one else was unclear about that ...

Unclear? Yes. Strong label, but I''ll wear it. But, at least, I was somewhat aware.

And there may be some non-official Forum "viewers" who were not familiar with the rule.

Watch the numbers. We've got a lot of "viewers" out there who don't actively participate in posting.

Originally Posted by Raymond

... if you are going debate ad nauseum about a certain rule, you should at least read all the relevant case plays for that rule.

Agree.

Now that I'm retired from my day job as a chemist, I should really go back to my annual reading of the casebook from cover to cover (it was an annual ritual for me, reading the entire casebook from cover to cover before taking my annual written refresher exam).

Now, when fans yell at me, "Don't quit your day job", I reply, "Too late, I already did".

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Unclear? Yes. Strong label, but I''ll wear it. But, at least, I was somewhat aware.

And there may be some non-official Forum "viewers" who were not familiar with the rule.

Watch the numbers. We've got a lot of "viewers" out there who don't actively participate in posting.
..

Not talking about some supposed lurkers. I'm trying to fathom how YOU did not know that those points do not get awarded to the opponent.

[Mike Goodwin]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I'm not proud of this, but I stopped reading the entire casebook annually cover to cover a few years back, now only reading it when I have a specific written rule exam question, or a specific "real game" question.

^This looks significant.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Mike Goodwin

This looks significant.

Guilty as charged. I'll get my head into the entire casebook as I prepare for next season's refresher exam. Pinky swear.