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

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Are you sure about these statements?

100% sure, but only for NFHS.

I know more about rocket surgery and brain science than I know about NCAA rules

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

100% sure, but only for NFHS.

I know more about rocket surgery and brain science than I know about NCAA rules

I am not sure I agree. Because if this is obviously a 3 and you never say it is a 2, then what is correctable?

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Because if this is obviously a 3 and you never say it is a 2, then what is correctable?

2-1-1-E: Officials may correct an error if a rule is inadvertently set aside and results in: Erroneously counting or canceling a score.

In NFHS rules and mechanics, if officials don't signal a "touchdown" three then the field goal is assumed to be two points. No longer, as in ancient times, do officials have to signal one point (free throw) or two points (two point field goal).

2.7.8 - Signal for Point(s) During the course of the game, the officials: (a) do not signal successful two-point field goals or free throws; or (b) do signal the value of point(s) resulting from defensive goaltending or basket interference. RULING:*This is proper procedure. Officials are not authorized to signal the point value for two-point goal or free throws. However, it is necessary to signal in cases of doubt or confusion and when point(s) are awarded. Officials shall also continue to signal a successful three-point goal.

If, for whatever reason, officials don't signal a "touchdown" three for a successful shot from behind the three point arc, then this becomes a correctable error situation that falls under the usual constraints and time frame restrictions of the correctable error rule.

For example, ball is inbounded after the successful shot from behind the three point arc with no visual three point "touchdown" signal given, and officials, coaches, or table immediately question the number of points. This easily falls within the correctable error time frame restrictions, so it can be discussed, old trail says, "Yeah, I was distracted and forgot to give the "touchdown" signal", and it will be corrected to three points.

But, in the above situation, if officials, coaches, or table question the number of points after the correctable error time frame restrictions have passed, it's too late to correct and only two points are counted, even if the official says, "Yeah, I remember that, I was distracted and forgot to give the "touchdown" signal".

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

100% sure, but only for NFHS.

I know more about rocket surgery and brain science than I know about NCAA rules

Still sounds like an opinion. Which is fine, but not the official position from the NF.

Peace

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by jrutledge

still sounds like an opinion. Which is fine, but not the official position from the nf.

Peace

2.10.1j

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

2.10.1j

2.10.1 SITUATION J: A1 attempts a goal from behind the three-point line: (a) but the covering official fails to give the successful signal after the ball goes through the basket, and the scorer records only two points; or (b) and the covering official gives the successful signal, but the scorer records only two points. Team B inbounds the ball and proceeds to score. The coach of Team A goes to the table and requests a 60-second time-out to discuss the error. RULING: In (a), the error of not awarding three points is correctable as it was detected prior to the second live ball after the error. The extra point is scored, the 60-second time-out is not charged and the game continues from the point of interruption. In (b), it is a -mistake by the scorer which can be corrected any time until the final score has been approved.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Are you sure about these statements?

Originally Posted by BillyMac

100% sure, but only for NFHS.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

... sounds like an opinion ... not the official position from the NF.

Exactly what part of my explanation was an opinion that you disagree with?