Correctable Error
 

B1 commits a common foul on A1. A1 is substituted by A6.
a) Team A in-bounds the ball, attempts a shot. Team B rebounds the ball. Team B moves down the court, make a basket. Timer immediately sounds the horn. Informs the official the foul was #7 for Team B. Can we correct the error? If so, what is the procedure?
b) Team A in-bounds the ball, Team B knocks the ball out-of-bounds. Timer immediately sounds the horn. Informs the official the foul was #7 for Team B. Can we correct the error? If so, what is the procedure?

Correctable Error Substitution ...
 

Thanks for bringing this up Zoochy. I was watching Greg Austin’s You Tube presentation (missed the live presentation) on correctable errors yesterday and had similar questions.

Who shoots the free throw(s)?

Sit A Tick ...
 

It's a correctable error (failure to award a merited free throw) that falls within the correctable error time frame (with no change of possession, rebounders for free throw(s)).

Who shoots the free throw(s)?

The substitute A6?

Or A1, who sat the required tick (fraction of a second)?

Sit Some Ticks ...
 

It's a correctable error (failure to award a merited free throw) that falls within the correctable error time frame (with a change of possession, point of interruption after free throw(s), when Team A will subsequently run the end line).

Who shoots the free throw(s)?

The substitute A6?

Or A1, who sat the required ticks?

Twist And Shout (The Beatles, 1964) ...
 

https://tse2.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.-...=0&w=227&h=172

New twist, situation #3.

B1 commits a common foul on A1. A1 is substituted by A6. A6 is legally beckoned and enters the court. Official erroneously hands ball to inbounder A3 (ball becomes live). Timer immediately sounds the horn. Informs the official the foul was #7 for Team B.

It's a correctable error (failure to award a merited free throw) that falls within the correctable error time frame (with no change of possession, rebounders for free throw(s)).

Who shoots the free throw(s)?

The substitute A6?

Or A1, who hasn't sat the required tick?

I'm only aware of one exception to the sit a tick rule - playing with five "trumps" the sit a tick rule (see citations below).

Is this another exception?

I doubt it.

8.2 SITUATION B: A1 is fouled and will be shooting two free throws. After A1’s
first free-throw attempt, B6 (Team B’s only remaining eligible substitute) replaces
B2. A1’s second free-throw attempt is unsuccessful. During rebounding action for
A1’s missed second free-throw attempt, and before the clock starts, A1 pushes B3
in the back causing B3 to roll an ankle. Team B is in the bonus. B3 is unable to
immediately continue playing. Team B requests and is granted a time out in order
to allow B3 to recover from the ankle injury so as to remain in the game. B3 is still
not able to play after the time out has ended. RULING: B2 may return to the game
and replace B3 and shoot B3’s free throw attempts despite having been replaced
since he/she is the only available substitute. (3-3-4)

3.1.1 SITUATION: After six players have been disqualified, Team A has only
four who are eligible to continue in the game as players. In a gesture of fair play,
the coach of Team B indicates a desire to withdraw a player so that each team will
have four players on the court. RULING: This is not permissible. Team B must
have five players participating as long as it has that number available. If no substitute
is available, a team must continue with fewer than five players. When only
one player remains to participate, that team shall forfeit the game unless the referee
believes this team still has an opportunity to win the game.

The rules wording for when an error is correctable is hard for many. I prefer to use this sequence to explain it:

Error...clock properly runs...dead ball...live ball.

If you go through each step and reach the live ball it is too late. Otherwise, it is correctable. This covers multiple live/dead/live transition that may happen before the clock starts, if any. It covers errors that occur with the clock running or the clock stopped.

Both (a) and (b) are correctable as there was no dead ball-live ball transition after the clock was started in either case...the error was discovered during the dead ball before it become live again (which would have made it too late in both cases).

In both cases, bring A1 back in to shoot the FT(s). Even if the clock had not run, you're bringing A1 back in to shoot the FTs. The rule requiring a player to sit-a-tick is not applicable in this situation. A1 shoots A1's FTs unless A1 is injured or disqualified.

In (a), since there had been a change of possession after the error (B rebounded), there will be no players along the lane for A1's 1+1. After the FT(s), resume at the POI...Team A gets the ball on Team B's endline as after any made shot. If Team A still wants to substitute A6 in for A1 after the FTs, they may do so....again, the substitution rules about sitting a tick are not in affect due to the correctable error.

In (b), there had been no change of possession. Line up players for the FT normally and continue play from the last FT as after any normal FT. If A1 makes the FTs, A6 may still come in for A1 after the FTs are completed.

Agree with Camron.

Citations ...
 

While not disagreeing with Camron Rust, are there citations other than 2-3 (Referee's Authority), and Purpose and Intent, to support his interpretation?

3-3-4: A player who has been replaced, or directed to leave the game shall
not re-enter before the next opportunity to substitute after the clock has been
started properly following his/her replacement.

My additional new twist situation #3 is the only one in the thread that doesn't have A1 sitting the required tick.

There are two casebook plays that support the one exception to the sit a tick rule that I am aware of - playing with five "trumps" the sit a tick rule.

Do we now have a second exception to the sit a tick rule?

2-3 (Referee's Authority) and Purpose and Intent are pretty good citations, but are there more?

Designated Shooter ...
 

My additional new twist situation #3 is the only one in the thread that doesn't have A1 sitting the required tick.

Since two of the three situations have A1 sitting the required tick, let's move away from the "sit a tick" question in those two situations and discuss whether the substitute A6 is some type of "designated shooter" who, for some reason, has to shoot the free throws (except for for blood, disqualification, or injury).

While not disagreeing with Camron Rust, are there citations other than 2-3 (Referee's Authority), and Purpose and Intent, to support his interpretation?

2-3 (Referee's Authority) and Purpose and Intent are pretty good citations, but are there more?

Down To Basics ...
 

While Camron Rust's explanation of a correctable error is great, I'm not sure that Zoochy's question was in regard to whether, or not, is was correctable, and how to move the game along, but rather, who shoots the free throw(s).

1) Is substitute A6 some type of "designated shooter", who is only allowed to be substituted for for blood, disqualification, or injury?

2) Does the sit a tick rule apply in the one situation (new twist situation #3) where A1 has not sat his required tick?

a) Yes you can correct the error. You are correcting after the first dead ball after the error. It can be corrected at this time.

You would shoot the FTs with no one on the lane, but you had a chance of possession so you give the ball back to the Team A that had the ball

b) This cannot be corrected because this is during the second live ball after the mistake.

Inform the table it is too late and give the ball back to Team A.

There is a part of me doubting Situation A only because of something that happened to me a couple of years ago. But I think this is right based on the rule as I know it.

Peace

Eureka! Eureka! (Socrates, Third Century B.C) …
 

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.

No injury. No disqualification.

This citation may take care of both the "sit a tick" and the "designated shooter" questions.

Yes, I now believe that we do.

No Second Live Ball ...
 

Disagree.

Common foul is point in the game that the dead ball (first dead ball) error occurs.

(Note: I believe that all correctable errors occur during dead balls.)

Ball become live (first live ball) when at disposal of Team A inbounder.

Clock runs (for a split second) when Team B deflects the live ball.

Ball out of bounds is a dead ball (second dead ball).

Timer immediately sounds the horn. Informs the official the foul was #7 for Team B.

Error is correctable because there was never a second live ball.

https://live.staticflickr.com/3117/3...1520c5cc_m.jpg

Note: With no change of possession, rebounders for free throw(s).

If I recall, a basket was made. The error took place and then we had a live ball. We had the first dead ball after the basket was made. Then when the ball was put at the disposal of the thrower, that is a live ball and the clock ticked because of the out of bounds violation. That made it too late. If the basket was not made, then I would agree.

Peace

Different Situation ...
 

That was Situation A.

Common foul is point in the game that the dead ball (first dead ball) error occurs.

(Note: I believe that all correctable errors occur during dead balls.)

Ball become live (first live ball) when at disposal of Team A inbounder.

Ball remains live (and clock runs) when Team A in-bounds the ball, when Team A attempts a shot (that misses), when Team B rebounds the ball, and when Team B moves down the court (no dead balls in this sequence, ball is live the entire sequence).

Team B making a basket is the next dead ball (second dead ball).

Timer immediately sounds the horn. Informs the official the foul was #7 for Team B.

Error is correctable because there was never a second live ball.

https://live.staticflickr.com/3117/3...1520c5cc_m.jpg

Note: With a change of possession, point of interruption after free throw(s), when Team A will subsequently run the end line.

Avoid Correctable Errors ...
 

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.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-8kpiJjRABp...the_switch.gif

Check the past Interps. This situation was published by the NFHS a few years ago. As has already been stated in the thread by others, A1 is brought back into the game to attempt the FTs and then, if possible, A6 is permitted to substitute for A1 following the FTs.

The King Of Interpretations ...
 

Thanks Nevadaref.

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)

For The Good Of The Cause ...
 

Another good correctable/non-correctable substitution situation:

2000-2001 NFHS Basketball Rules Interpretations
SITUATION 5: A1 is fouled in the act of shooting and is awarded two free throws. A1 is injured on the play and Team A’s coach has been beckoned on the floor to attend to A1. Although by rule A1 should leave the game until the next legal opportunity to substitute, the officials make an error and permit A1 to complete the free throws before leaving. The opposing coach objects and insists that A1’s substitute should have shot the free throws, and a correctable error has occurred. RULING: The officials made an error by permitting A1 to remain in the game. This is not a correctable error for a wrong player attempting a free throw, even though A1 is required to leave the game by rule. (3-3-5; 3-3-3)

Owns The Basket ???
 

New correctable error situation #4: Two technical foul free throws successful at the wrong basket. Subsequent live ball, dead ball, and live ball. Error discovered too late, so not correctable.

Everything else is "going the right way".

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

Re-Enter ...
 

Glad the NFHS added this part. Without it, I would have made A6 sit a tick (and be wrong).

No way I am doing that in my game. Count the points for the team that shot the FTs

agree.

Hang Our Hats On ...
 

Won't be doing that in any of my games either, but how about a citation to hang our hats on?

Better yet, consider it a written test question.

Doesn't Have To Be Corrected ...
 

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.

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?

If, due to an officials error, free throws are shot at the wrong basket, and the error is caught within the time frame, why do we have correct the error and go down to the other end to shoot again (after cancelling points scored at the wrong basket) when 4-5 says to count the points for the team that shot the free throws (and then resume by going the right way)?

Pissed Off Coaches ...
 

Instead of following 4-5, let's say we treat it as a correctable error (within the proper time frame). Player makes two free throws at the wrong basket, then we discover the error, both points are cancelled and we go down to the other end and the player misses both free throws.

Or vice versa.

In either situation, treating this as a correctable error is going to call undue attention to the problem, attention that isn't needed, and one coach is going to be very pissed.

Isn't it better to adjudicate with 4-5, count no points, or one point, or two points (with a single set of free throws), and resume by being sure that the players are going the right way?

Conflicting Rules ...
 

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.

Certs, Two Mints In One, A Breath Mint, And A Candy Mint ...
 

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.

Fools Rush In (Where Angels Fear To Tread) (Ricky Nelson, 1963) ...
 

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".

Why Is Attempting A Free Throw At The Wrong Basket A Correctable Error ???
 

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.

Some food for thought (nom, nom, nom)
 

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.

There's No I In Team ...
 

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.

A Tisket A Tasket (Ella Fitzgerald, 1938) ...
 

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.

Gym Rats ...
 

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.

Northern Lights ...
 

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.

Written Exam, Rule Based ...
 

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).

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

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

Avoid Controversy ...
 

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?

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

Intellectual Curiosity ...
 

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.

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.

https://tse4.explicit.bing.net/th?id...=0&w=223&h=163

Abomination ...
 

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.

https://tse4.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.5...=0&w=300&h=300

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.

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

Always Listen To bob ...
 

Why is Nevadaref posting under Mike Goodwin's username?

Great drop the microphone citation. Thanks.

Pretty much what bob jenkins said a while back.

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.

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

Avoid Correctable Errors ...
 

And apparently for the NFHS since they have a casebook play that specifically deals with this situation.

One rule does. One rule doesn't.

When the time frame of a correctable error has not passed, it is true that the free throws must be attempted at the correct basket, but when the time frame of a correctable error has passed that's not true, the free throws don't have to be attempted at the correct basket, and if points are scored, they count for the shooting team (4-5).

Agree 100%.

4-5 Nobody Gets Cheated By An Official's Mistake ...
 

I never seriously thought that, but wondered why it was so important that this be a correctable error since nobody got "cheated" by an official's "mistake".

Not free throws, and not a mistake by the officials, but you haven't officiated very long if you have never observed a confused player attempting to shoot at the "wrong" basket and any points scored count for the "other" team (with all the complications if said player is fouled by an equally confused defender).

Newbie Sarcasm ...
 

Are Forum members with less than fifty posts allowed to be sarcastic?

Maybe someone who travels to games in puddle jumpers has paid his "dues" and is allowed to be what he wants to be?

https://tse3.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.l...=0&w=436&h=180

What does that have to do with the subject of shooting free throws at the wrong basket?

I'll answer for you--nothing at all. Nobody has ever been confused enough to think that shooting free throws at the wrong basket will count as points for the opponent, so I don't know why you're posting 20 plus times to yourself on the subject.


Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Wrong Baskets ...
 

Wrong baskets in general, and complications that are sometimes associated with them.

These (not free throws) sometimes confuse some non-officials. I've had middle school coaches and recreation league coaches (often parent coaches) who are flabbergasted that the points count for the other team, believing that the points should just be cancelled for some reason.

No Regrets ...
 

My multiple posts in this thread resulted in Mike Goodwin's great citation (wrong basket free throws), a citation that nobody else was able to come up with (bob jenkins came close), so I have no guilt about my many posts in this thread. Regarding a slightly different situation earlier in this thread (substitution), my posts sparked Nevadaref to come up with a great citation as well. And by talking myself through it, I was also able to come up with a few good citations myself (8-2 and 4-5). The results speak for themselves. My stubborn persistence paid off.

No one said it was "so" important except you through your own inferences.

It's just a correctable error to everyone else. The free throws were shot at the wrong basket. It's correctable whether the free throws were missed or made.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

If you were really unsure that these two points should have counted for the team that shot the free throws, with as much experience you have, that's an inexcusable lack of knowledge.
...




Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Interpretation Of Some Type ...
 

The NFHS must have thought it important because they listed it as a correctable error, and followed it up with a casebook play for good measure.

Never, just curious about a reason for a correctable error that really didn't need correcting because nobody was "cheated". Best way to figure this out was through posts about hypothetical situations in this thread. Just wanted something more (like a citation) than common sense to hang a hat on. My stubborn persistence and Devil's advocate attitude paid off.

In the back of my mind I think I knew that there was a interpretation of some type that kept whispering to me to count the free throws for the shooter's team, I just couldn't put my finger on it, and was quite pleased when Mike Goodwin finally posted it.

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

My Evil Plan ...
 

https://tse4.explicit.bing.net/th?id...=0&w=300&h=300

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.

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.

Relevant Case Plays ...
 

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.

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".

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.

Confirmed ...
 

Knew it, but wanted it confirmed with some type of citation (thanks Mike Goodwin).

Summary ...
 

So what have we (or maybe just me) confirmed recently?

Thanks Zoochy, Nevadaref, bob jenkins, Camron Rust, JRutledge, Raymond, and Mike Goodwin.

We (I) won't be getting any of these wrong on our (my) next written exam.

You do not have any friends in officiating that you can talk to about these things? There are times when things need clarification and I contact people that I respect not on this site. I certainly do not go over and over with things I think I know or do not know here all the time. If that was hard to understand, then ask someone that you deal with in real life. You claim to be connected to people that are in IAABO, so why not ask them. This is not hard, not at all. It is obvious if you shoot at the wrong basket on a FT, that is a CR. It is likely that way because you need to earn that on your own basket, not give points to the other team.

This stuff just gets hard to follow when the same person goes back and forth about the same point over and over again with themselves. I am not even sure what was being talked about until others stepped in.

Peace

Connections ...
 

With rare exemption, my personal life and basketball officiating have few dove-tails outside of basketball season, and unlike others on the Forum, basketball season for me is a strictly November to March endeavor.

I view the Forum as an educational resource, as much as a rulebook, casebook, mechanics manual, IAABO International, my local board, You Tube, or some other website. And I have a high degree of respect for Forum members, especially the regular posters, who have a much better grasp of basketball rules and mechanics than 95% of the guys on my local board, a small percentage who don't know, or who don't care, if the basketball is stuffed, or inflated.

Got a question? Why not ask the Forum? And I'm not a big fan of the "Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime" philosophy when it comes to using the Forum as an educational resource. It's the twenty-first century. The internet was invented for a reason, let's use it to our advantage. There a ton of basketball officiating expertise on the Forum. Why let it go to waste?

I do have access to the IAABO International "Gang of Four" co-interpreters. However, they are responsible to over 15,000 IAABO members, and I only contact them with pressing matters of great importance. When I've contacted them they have been gracious in their replies, and on occasion have "bumped" up the question to their "connections" at the NFHS. While my local interpreter is quite good, and approachable, I view that individual position of authority as quite limited in scope, especially when I want "NFHS-level" answers relevant to all situations, including situations outside of my little corner of Connecticut.

I am not saying to not ask questions here. I am saying that if you are struggling with the details of an issue in a rule that is outside of the original conversation, you have no one to bring that to other than this forum? And again no issue if you bring up an issue that is talked about, but you bring up something you are confused about and go on and on with yourself. We are not confused about that aspect of the rule. And we did not write the rule or sit on the committee to know why there is an issue or how it should be corrected. All I am saying is that if it is that much of an issue, talk to someone that you know in your organization. I do that often and no one even knows I had the conversation. I also have other forums to discuss things so when there is something that takes place that I want other opinions on, I can go there as well. I read stuff on this site I would never do and I will only explain what we are told here and if I need an interpretation that hard, I ask the folks I work with or answer to.

Peace

Wouldn't It Be Nice (The Beach Boys, 1966) ...
 

Yeah. I know. Too bad. Wouldn't it be nice if somebody from the NFHS was a Forum member?

The NFHS Sometimes Does Listen To The Great Unwashed....
 

Speak for yourself. These have my fingerprints all over them. My fifteen seconds of fame. Will have them engraved on my tombstone.

3-3-E Defensive Match-Up, 2003-04
4-22 Goaltending, 2015-16
3-5-3 Compression Shorts, 2016-17

I said the people you were asking. Not referring to what you have done or not done. If that is what you have done, then you should be able to ask people that are higher than our pay grade about why a rule that has been in place for well over 20 years you should be able to ask those in positions, what should be done or why a rule are there in the first place?

Peace

Got My Back ...
 

It took a few days, but Nevadaref and Mike Goodwin came through when they were needed.

https://tse4.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.f...=0&w=300&h=300

One actually cited the relevant rule/case play and the other utilized the search options available to forum members. Someone with 40 years of officiating and 20K posts shouldn't need that type of spoon-feeding.

Not Even A Thank You ...
 

Thousands have suggested rule changes to the NFHS over the many years. Dozens, perhaps hundreds, have had their rule change suggestions approved part way, or all the way, up the ladder. I doubt that any of those get any special privileges, no personal phone numbers, no secret handshakes, no Christmas cards, etc. I know that I didn't, not even a thank you.

Piling On ...
 

Go ahead. Keep piling on. I deserve it.

And I do consider Nevadaref above my pay grade, too early to tell for Mike Goodwin, but he probably is.

Awe ...
 

I'm probably the lowest pay grade regular poster on the Forum. I'm often in awe of the rules expertise that is consistently presented on this forum.

And I'm definitely the most prolific poster.

Twenty Thousand Posts Under The Sea ...
 

I didn't realize that I had reached 20,000 posts.

No celebration? No cards? No gifts?

Is there a level above Esteemed Forum Member?

Reading is Fundamental
 

^This looks significant.

Guilty ...
 

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