Correctable Error

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Two technical foul free throws ... at the wrong basket.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

4-5: A team’s own basket is the one into which its players try to throw or tap the ball. If by mistake the officials permit a team to go the wrong direction, when discovered all points scored, fouls committed, and time consumed must count as if each team had gone the proper direction. Play must resume with each team going the proper direction based on bench location.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Do we have conflicting rules here? A hard way to handle the problem (correctable error), and an easy way to handle the problem (4-5)?

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Follow both rules -- correct it if you can; don't if you can't.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

With 4-5 saying to count the points for the team that shot the free throws, why is "attempting a free throw at the wrong basket" considered to be a correctable error if it doesn't have to be corrected?

I've had time to sleep on this, as we all have.

While I like bob jenkins' idea on how to handle seemingly conflicting rules, I still want to know why "attempting a free throw at the wrong basket" is listed as a correctable error if it doesn't have to be corrected according to 4-5.

The correctable error rule is the only way to right five listed wrongs: Failure to award a merited free throw. Awarding an unmerited free throw. Permitting a wrong player to attempt a free throw. Erroneously counting a score. Erroneously canceling a score.

All five listed errors will impact the score, and possibly impact the result of the game, if not "righted" (some free throw shooters are better than others).

Attempting a free throw at the wrong basket will not impact the score, nor will it possibly impact the result of the game.

According to 4-5, attempting a free throw at the wrong basket doesn't have to be "righted". The points (if any) count for the team that shot the free throws.

Wrong basket? Embarrassing? Yes. But who cares? Nobody was "cheated" out of possible points. Nobody gained an advantage, or was put at a disadvantage, due to a "mistake".

Just make sure that we resume play by being sure that the players are going the right way ("two wrongs don't make a right").

Sure, if these free throws were treated as any other "wrong way" (player's mistake) basket, with points counting for the team that "owns" the basket, then we would certainly need attempting a free throw at the wrong basket listed as a correctable error, but these points don't count for the team that "owns" the basket, 4-5 tells us the points count for the team that shoots the free throws.

Bottom line: Why is attempting a free throw at the wrong basket listed as a correctable error? What's the rationale for this part of the rule?

An enquiring little mind in a little corner of Connecticut wants to know.

[Mike Goodwin]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I've had time to sleep on this, as we all have.

Attempting a free throw at the wrong basket will not impact the score, nor will it possibly impact the result of the game.

Bottom line: Why is attempting a free throw at the wrong basket listed as a correctable error? What's the rationale for this part of the rule?

An enquiring little mind in a little corner of Connecticut wants to know.

Ok, ponder these, BillyMac:

Even in accordance with Rule 1, I'd believe that no two ends of any basketball court are completely identical, so an attempt by a player at one end wouldn't necessarily result in a successful free throw at the opposite end, given identical actions by the thrower. That'd my best guess at why the rules committee would want the throw(s) re-administered at the proper end, if correctable. You want the points? Under certain correctable circumstances: earn them in your own basket.

More relevant:

Rule 4-5-4 deals with officials permitting a team to go the wrong way. Rule 2-10 deals with a player attempting a free throw at the wrong basket. That's a distinction between the collective and the individual, even if both are as a result of an official's error.

Case book 5.2.1 Situation E: "During the pregame practice period, the visiting team properly uses the east goal and the home team the west goal. The officials, by mistake, allow the jumpers to face the wrong direction to start the game. A1 controls the tap by tapping the ball back to A2. A2, realizing that he/she had warmed up at the basket behind A1, dribbles to that basket and scores an uncontested basket.

Score the basket for Team A. The officials should stop the game and emphasize to both teams the proper direction. Allowing A1 and B1 to face the wrong direction is an official's error and not a correctable error, as in Rule 2-10 (4-5-4)"

Case book 5.2.1 Situation F, similarly: "During the pregame practice period, the visiting team properly uses the east goal and the home team the west goal. The officials, by mistake, allow the jumpers to face the wrong direction to start the game. Several baskets are scored before it is recognized that both teams are throwing the ball into the opponent's basket.

All points are scored are count as if the teams had gone the right direction and scored in their own basket. Once the mistake is recognized, play shall continue with each team attempting to score it its own basket (4-5-4)."

While Situation E apparently lasts a brief time, Situation F has play continue for a while, but does not mention the existence of any free throws, which lends support to applying 4-5-4 for this type of play, rather having it considered an error as in 2-10.

And that's my 2¢ for a Saturday night in the land of the Midnight Sun.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Mike Goodwin

More relevant: Rule 4-5-4 deals with officials permitting a team to go the wrong way. Rule 2-10 deals with a player attempting a free throw at the wrong basket. That's a distinction between the collective and the individual, even if both are as a result of an official's error.

While I appreciate Mike Goodwin's thoughtful explanation, I really don't think that we want to open up that can of worms.

Ignoring 4-5 for free throws at the wrong basket (individual instead of collective) can lead to an uncorrected error (too late) that ends up with the points (if any) counting for the team that "owns" the basket (not the shooter's team), something viewed with utter disgust by Camron Rust, bob jenkins, and yours truly.

However, that may be a "real game" disgust, not a written exam, rule based, disgust.

Of course, if any Forum members, or the NFHS, believe that free throws at the wrong basket actually can lead to an uncorrected error (too late) that ends up with the points (if any) counting for the team that "owns" the basket (not the shooter's team), then Mike Goodwin's view that attempting a free throw at the wrong basket should be listed as a correctable error makes a whole lot of sense.

Also, for simplicity's sake, I chose a situation involving shooting free throws for a technical (individual shooter) foul (something that we're always warned not to do). I could have made it free throws with rebounders present, which eliminates the distinction between the collective and the individual.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Mike Goodwin

I'd believe that no two ends of any basketball court are completely identical, so an attempt by a player at one end wouldn't necessarily result in a successful free throw at the opposite end, given identical actions by the thrower. That'd my best guess at why the rules committee would want the throw(s) re-administered at the proper end, if correctable. You want the points? Under certain correctable circumstances: earn them in your own basket.

Silly reason, unless the NFHS believes that free throws at the wrong basket actually can lead to an uncorrected error (too late) that ends up with the points (if any) counting for the team that "owns" the basket (not the shooter's team), in which case attempting a free throw at the wrong basket being listed as a correctable error makes a whole lot of sense.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Mike Goodwin

... no two ends of any basketball court are completely identical ...

Played in a game once at the New Haven, Connecticut YMCA back in the 1960's where one basket was attached to a balcony that overlooked the court. Kids would reach over the balcony and try to swat at the ball until the were chased away by the site director.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Mike Goodwin

... that's my 2¢ for a Saturday night in the land of the Midnight Sun.

What does one do with two cents in one's pocket on a Saturday night in Fairbanks, Alaska except watch the aurora borealis?

Answer: Post about a situation both rare and silly on the Forum.

Note: Solar activity reached a minimum in 2020 and activity has been increasing ever since. Enjoy the free show. Can't beat the price of admission.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

... an uncorrected error (too late) that ends up with the points (if any) counting for the team that "owns" the basket (not the shooter's team) ... the NFHS, believe that free throws at the wrong basket actually can lead to an uncorrected error (too late) that ends up with the points (if any) counting for the team that "owns" the basket (not the shooter's team) ...

Originally Posted by BillyMac

... the NFHS believes that free throws at the wrong basket actually can lead to an uncorrected error (too late) that ends up with the points (if any) counting for the team that "owns" the basket (not the shooter's team), in which case attempting a free throw at the wrong basket being listed as a correctable error makes a whole lot of sense.

Anybody see a common theme here?

Anybody want to go out on a limb and support it?

While I may dip my foot in the water, it may not be a hill that I want to die on (sorry about the mixed metaphors).

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I really don't think that we want to open up that can of worms.

Could it be time to take the worms out of the can?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

While I may dip my foot in the water, it may not be a hill that I want to die on.

Every party has a pooper and that's why we invited Mike Goodwin.

I still like using 4-5 to avoid counting points scored by free throws at the wrong basket for the team that "owns" the basket (not the shooter's team) for an uncorrectable error (too late).

4-5 is in the rulebook so let's push the envelope a little and use it as a "work around" to avoid controversy (and to keep visiting coaches from being forced to sit on cold buses in parking lots).

Anybody disagree?

Note: The buses in parking lots in Fairbanks, Alaska must be very, very cold. Maybe about -15 °F?

[JRutledge]

I'm convinced the only reason Billy responses several times in a row is to get higher on the posting list. There cannot be that much overthinking about none issues by anyone that has a semblance of a life. Every rule does not need that much dissertation with people that do not make "nar" rule.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I'm convinced the only reason Billy responses several times in a row is to get higher on the posting list.

No. The reason is to get some semblance of closure on complex issues that may have been unintentionally left unclear by the NFHS.

There are different level of rules expertise among those of us that seriously study the rules.

For some rules experts rules expertise means to understand rules in such a way as to get them through 99% of situations one may encounter in "real game" situations. This level of study, along with mechanics study, signals study, experience, game management "people" skills, physical ability, understanding of the game, etc., will lead to a very successful basketball officiating career, maybe becoming one of the best basketball officials in an area, possibly becoming a local, or state, interpreter/trainer/clinician, etc.

And then there are those, like myself, who wish to kick up their rules expertise a notch, maybe to a level of intellectual curiosity others may not desire. We attempt to understand rules at a level that exceeds 99% of situations one may find occurring in "real game" situations, odd situations that test one's rules knowledge on a "written exam" level.

Why do we do it? I can't speak for all, but for me it's not to be a better "real game" official, it's not to be a better trainer, and it's not to show off. It's the intellectual challenge of "deep diving" into the rulebook and casebook to try to find answers that may not be readily apparent at first glance, especially regarding odd situations unintentionally left unclear by the NFHS.

And as an added extra bonus, during a "deep dive" one may occasionally come across an "Easter egg" situation, or interpretation, that may actually be useful in a "real game".

Some "research" requires multiple posts, to clarify something by peeling away additional layers of the onion, or to try to clarify something with new wording.

Thanks to Forum members Zoochy, Nevadaref, bob jenkins, Camron Rust, and Mike Goodwin, there are a few great insights regarding the "sausage making" process of correcting errors in this thread.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

8-2: The free throw(s) awarded because of a personal foul must be attempted by the offended player. If such player must withdraw because of an injury or disqualification, his/her substitute must attempt the throw(s) unless no substitute is available, in which case any teammate may attempt the throw(s) as selected by the team captain or head coach.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

2005-06 NFHS Basketball Rules Interpretations SITUATION 1: A1 is fouled by B1 late in the second quarter. It is a common foul and the seventh Team B foul. The bonus situation is not recognized by the scorer or the officiating crew, and the Team A coach substitutes A6 for A1. A6 is beckoned onto the floor and A1 goes to the team bench. The scorer recognizes the error and sounds the horn (a) just before or (b) just after the administering official hands the ball to A2 for a throw-in. RULING: This is a correctable-error situation and falls within the proper timeframe for a correction. In both (a) and (b), A6 leaves the game with A1 re-entering to shoot the bonus free throw. Play is resumed as after any free-throw attempt(s). If the second free throw is successful and the coach desires, A6 may re-enter the contest. (2-10-1a; 2-10-6)[/I]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

4-5: A team’s own basket is the one into which its players try to throw or tap the ball. If by mistake the officials permit a team to go the wrong direction, when discovered all points scored, fouls committed, and time consumed must count as if each team had gone the proper direction. Play must resume with each team going the proper direction based on bench location.

Even JRutledge's incorrect interpretation of an error as not being correctable when it actually was correctable was of great value because it allowed Forum members (and readers) an opportunity to re-examine (step by step) the correctable error time frame.

Have we achieved absolute closure to all the situations described in this thread? No we haven't because the NFHS needs more clarity in some if its rules and interpretations. But for those of us who want to kick our rule expertise up a notch, it was a great discussion.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Anybody disagree?

I would still like to see free throws at the wrong basket deleted from the correctable error list, and use 4-5 to take care of such situations.

Why does it bother me that free throws at the wrong basket is on the correctable error list?

Because it's presence on correctable error list seems to imply that the NFHS wants us to count points scored by free throws at the wrong basket for the team that "owns" the basket for a (too late) uncorrectable error, something that many here on the Forum consider to be an abomination.

That's why.

[Mike Goodwin]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I would still like to see free throws at the wrong basket deleted from the correctable error list, and use 4-5 to take care of such situations.

Why does it bother me that free throws at the wrong basket is on the correctable error list?

Did you find 2.10.4 Situation B insufficient?

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 timeframe for the correctable error (a) has not passed; or (b) has passed.

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."

What benefit is there from deleting "the wrong basket" from 2-10-1? Team A keeps the points they scored in the other basket, if the error isn't corrected in time.

[JRutledge]

This only seems to be an issue for you Billy. It really is not something many people argue or debate. The rule says that it must be done at the correct basket, why it is that way is really not that much of a debate. Don't let it happen and then you have nothing to worry about. Shoot at the proper basket. It does not even say that shooting out of order is an issue. I have never in all my years heard anyone go on and on about this but you at this point Billy. So take that for what it is worth. And I know I am around many more officials than you are in your little corner of Conneticut. I was around people this past weekend from all over the country in Texas. No one is struggling with this issue.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Why is Nevadaref posting under Mike Goodwin's username?

Originally Posted by Mike Goodwin

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..

Great drop the microphone citation. Thanks.

Pretty much what bob jenkins said a while back.

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Follow both rules -- correct it if you can; don't if you can't.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Two technical foul free throws successful (or unsuccessful) at the wrong basket. So, within the correctable error time frame, use the correctable error rule, meaning two sets of free throws (cancelling first set, counting second set), which may piss off one head coach. Why coach? Because, by rule, it's a correctable error (attempting a free throw at the wrong basket) and we have to do it that way. Outside of the correctable error time frame, use 4-5, one set of free throws, and count the points (if any) for the team that shot the free throws. Why coach? Because, by rule 4-5, it's not a correctable error (too late to correct) and we have to do it that way (must count as if each team had gone the proper direction). But under absolutely no circumstances, when outside the correctable error time frame, should we count the points (if any) for the team that "owns" the basket. Why coach? Because of rule 4-5 (must count as if each team had gone the proper direction).

I like the ruling on (b) because it confirms that NFHS wants us to count points scored by free throws at the wrong basket for the team that shoots the free throws, not the team that "owns" the basket for a (too late) uncorrectable error.

Like Mike Goodwin stated earlier, the NFHS really wants players shooting free throws at the correct basket, even it there is no danger of points counting for the "wrong" team.

Thanks guys. The layers of the onion have been peeled away.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

...


I like the ruling on (b) because it confirms that NFHS wants us to count points scored by free throws at the wrong basket for the team that shoots the free throws, not the team that "owns" the basket for a (too late) uncorrectable error...

There is not a single sane or sensible person I know who would think to credit points to the opponent if somebody shoots free throws at the wrong basket.

That was never part of any debate in this thread. That is an example of you making up stuff in your head just so you can post back and forth with yourself.




Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk