Correctable Error

[bob jenkins]

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)?

So which rule do we use, especially in a late game, close game, situation with two smart head coaches, one of which will be pissed off at the outcome, that we know is going to look up the rules (both rules, picking the one that is to his advantage) and question our assigner?

If we only had a casebook play? How about it Nevadaref?

Follow both rules -- correct it if you can; don't if you can't. And the rule about "attempting at the wrong basket" could work to the advantage of either team depending on if the FTs were made or missed.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Follow both rules -- correct it if you can; don't if you can't. And the rule about "attempting at the wrong basket" could work to the advantage of either team depending on if the FTs were made or missed.

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).

That it?

This is why basketball officials get paid the big bucks.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Two technical foul free throws successful (or unsuccessful) at the wrong basket ... This is why basketball officials get paid the big bucks.

This is why all four of my local interpreters over forty years have each told us, on many occasions, to get together with partners before technical foul free throws to make sure that, at minimum, we're shooting at the correct basket.

I always think, "Never. No way". But they keep telling us that we often call technical fouls when we're pissed off and maybe a little emotional and that it's easy under those conditions get distracted and to accidently and carelessly get "turned around".

And then being forced to subsequently correct the error can really make us look foolish under the watchful eyes of players, coaches, and fans. "These guys can't even go in the right direction. What a bunch of fools".

[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 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 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.

[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.