Correctable Error: 3pt FGA: Utah State vs Portland State Men's Game.

[Raymond]

Most recent communication from the NCAA-Men's rules secretary:

3. Three-Point Goal (Rule 5-1.3,.4 and .5)- These rules all seem to indicate that a player must have attempted a try for goal as defined by Rule 5-1.1 in order for a three-point goal to be awarded (Rule 5-1.4 and 5-1.5). However, A.R. 113 and 114 indicate that a “try” is not necessary to credit a threepoint goal. For the remainder of the season and until further review by the rules committee, officials should rely only on A.R. 113 and 114 and not the requirement of a “try for goal” as set forth in Rule 5-1.4 and .5.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

For the remainder of the season and until further review by the rules committee ...

Thanks Raymond.

Makes we wonder what the college rule and interpretation will be next year.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Thanks Raymond.

Makes we wonder what the college rule and interpretation will be next year.

I have to focus on this season.

Whatever they do, it will be well communicated. NCAA-Men's communicates with us throughout the year about rules and interpretations.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

Whatever they do, it will be well communicated. NCAA-Men's communicates with us throughout the year about rules and interpretations.

Wish I could say the same about the NFHS, and its kissing cousin, IAABO.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Raymond

Most recent communication from the NCAA-Men's rules secretary:

3. Three-Point Goal (Rule 5-1.3,.4 and .5)- These rules all seem to indicate that a player must have attempted a try for goal as defined by Rule 5-1.1 in order for a three-point goal to be awarded (Rule 5-1.4 and 5-1.5). However, A.R. 113 and 114 indicate that a “try” is not necessary to credit a threepoint goal. For the remainder of the season and until further review by the rules committee, officials should rely only on A.R. 113 and 114 and not the requirement of a “try for goal” as set forth in Rule 5-1.4 and .5.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

My only objection to them changing it a 3-point goal wasn't that it shouldn't have been (it should have) but that it was beyond the correctable error window when they did it. The above statement does not address that element of the question.

Fixing an erroneously counted score (it was erroneously counted as 2 instead of 3) has a very limited time window and waiting until half time when it occurred at 5 minutes remaining surely would have been way after the last time to fix it. The under 4:00 time out would have ended the correctable error window if nothing else had before that.

I may be wrong but believe either NCAA-M or NCAA-W (not sure) have some considerations for checking a 2 vs 3 at the next break if the crew indicates at the time of the shot that they wish to check it but I doubt that extends to the end of the half unless it happened at that point.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

My only objection to them changing it a 3-point goal wasn't that it shouldn't have been (it should have) but that it was beyond the correctable error window when they did it. The above statement does not address that element of the question.

Fixing an erroneously counted score (it was erroneously counted as 2 instead of 3) has a very limited time window and waiting until half time when it occurred at 5 minutes remaining surely would have been way after the last time to fix it. The under 4:00 time out would have ended the correctable error window if nothing else had before that.

I may be wrong but believe either NCAA-M or NCAA-W (not sure) have some considerations for checking a 2 vs 3 at the next break if the crew indicates at the time of the shot that they wish to check it but I doubt that extends to the end of the half unless it happened at that point.

I understand what you're saying, and yes there is a monitor review trigger in NCAA Men's for the next media time out.

But there would have been no need for a review because the ball was obviously released from behind the three-point line.

I can only assume, but maybe one of the officials commented at halftime about the play and it triggered a discussion about whether or not the table properly recorded it as a 3-point goal. Again, that's only an assumption.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

My only objection to them changing it a 3-point goal wasn't that it shouldn't have been (it should have) but that it was beyond the correctable error window when they did it. The above statement does not address that element of the question.

I'm not a college official, but if I'm allowed to comment, I agree.

There are two separate situations here. One is slightly "fuzzy" (two or three on a pass), and the other is pretty cut and dry (correctable error window).

Originally Posted by Raymond

... maybe one of the officials commented at halftime about the play and it triggered a discussion about whether or not the table properly recorded it as a 3-point goal.

Was it signaled as a three and recorded as a two (bookkeeping error, correctable until the end of jurisdiction)? Or was it signaled (by a non signal) as a two and recorded as a two (correctable within a limited time frame)?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

...



Was it signaled as a three and recorded as a two (bookkeeping error, correctable until the end of jurisdiction)? Or was it signaled (by a non signal) as a two and recorded as a two (correctable within a limited time frame)?

Or the Lead, who would not have a signal for this play, knew it was a 3 and then found out it was not recorded as such.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Raymond

I can only assume, but maybe one of the officials commented at halftime about the play and it triggered a discussion about whether or not the table properly recorded it as a 3-point goal.

Or the crew talked about it at halftime, pulled out a rules book, looked up the ARs and realized that they kicked it. So they chose to correct it, even though it was now too late to do so.