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

I am sure that most of us have read about this game and seen a video of the Play: https://www.cbssports.com/college-ba...ortland-state/

We all know or should know that the Rule is the same for NFHS, NCAA Men's, and NCAA Women's and there are Casebook Plays and Approved Rulings across the three Rules Codes that state that this is a 3pt FG.

The Ball went through the Basket with 5:16 left in the 1st Half and the Officials scored it as a 2pt FG. At Half Time the Officials went to the Rule Book and before the 2nd Half resumed changed the FG from 2pts to 3pts.

My question is: Was this a Correctable Error? If it was a CE, then was it not too late to change it from a 2pt FG to a 3pt FG?

My two cents: It was a CE and it was too late to Correct it.

What say you? Let the fun begin.

MTD, Sr.

My understanding is that if the mistake was by the official(s) then it's not correctable as the time frame has passed, but if the error is by the table then it can be corrected.

In this case, since it was reported as a 2 point FG it had to be corrected in the time frame but wasn't. Should have been left as a 2.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

NCAAW is different from NFHS on this, at least in gmaes with replay.

The official needs to SIGNAL the table that this will be reviewed and that SIGNAL needs to come within the CE time frame. The replay review is then held at the next media TO or immediately at the end of the quarter (whichever comes first).

If the play happens after the media timeout in the 4th quarter, then the review must happen within the CE timeframe

Bob:

Question per NCAA Women's Rules: If my memory serves me correctly isn't the Replay Review for determining whether or not the FGA was from behind the 3pt Line (i.e. the Shooter was on or behind the 3pt Line)? This was straight up a Ball that was released behind the 3pt Line that went untouched through the Basket. The Officials then went to the Rules Book and the Approved Rulings and determined that it should have been scored as a 3pt FG.

Mark

MTD, Sr.

Correctable Error ...
 

If NFHS and NCAA correctable error rules are the same, as the grizzled old geezer states, I agree with BryanV21.

If the officials had signaled three points at the time of the play, and if the table has incorrectly marked two points, this is a bookkeeping error that can be corrected up until the officials jurisdiction ends.

However, if the officials had not signaled three points at the time of the play, this is a correctable error situation that falls under the usual constraints and time frame restrictions of the correctable error rule.

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.

While I can't speak in regard to NCAA rules, in ancient NFHS times, when the three point arc were first painted on the court, if it was deemed a pass it would only count as two points.

But, quoth the raven, nevermore.

Am I right Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.? Nice post. Thanks.

I am now confused as to what happened and who "scored it a 2."

Are you saying the official knew the shooter was behind the line and still didn't signal a 3 (or showed two fingers to the table, or similar)?

Yes. It was an alley opp pass from "way downtown" that touched nothing but net.

MTD, Sr.

Oh -- so they (incorrectly) ruled that because it was not a try, it couldn't be worth 3 points? And at halftime the looked up the rule, realized they kicked it and changed the scoring?

Yes -- that's a CE and must be corrected in the CE timeframe.

Or maybe no one thought this was a question and did not signal a 3 point basket. I could see that happening, but the officials should signal a three signal once the ball goes into the basket.

Sounds like this is the semantics of the rule. Did the officials make a mistake or did the table not properly award a 3 point shot? I'm not sure that it would have been wrong for the book person to award a 3 point shot.

Peace

Separate Issues ...
 

There are a few separate issues here.

First, two points or three points for a "pass" from behind the three point arc that goes in? I can't speak for the NCAA, but it's three points in "modern" NFHS rules. If that rule is inadvertently set aside (misapplied) and the officials do not signal the three point "touchdown" signal, then we move onto the second issue.

Failing to signal the three point "touchdown" signal due to an inadvertently set aside (misapplied) rule is a correctable error situation that falls under the usual constraints and time frame restrictions of the correctable error rule.

On the other hand, if the officials did signal the three point "touchdown" signal, and the scorekeeper unilaterally decided, incorrectly due to his unfamiliarity with the rule, to mark two points instead of three points, that's a bookkeeping error that can be corrected up until the officials jurisdiction ends (NFHS).

Another Fine Mess ...
 

I find this situation fascinating. Thanks JRutledge.

Officials inadvertently set aside (misapplied) the rule and don't signal three, but the scorekeeper marks it as three, knowing the proper rule.

Next, within the correctable error time frame, or outside of the correctable error time frame, the opposing coach questions the score, "You didn't signal three but the scorekeeper put up three".

In either situation, on time, or too late, what score goes up on the scoreboard?

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

Are you sure about these statements?

Peace

I can't see all of what the college crew did because they went out of frame (specifically: signal vs. no signal by each of the crew members), but this case book play closely resembles the video. [Fortunately for high-school officials: we no longer have to judge pass vs. try].

2.10.1 SITUATION K

A1 jumps and releases a try for goal apparently from behind the three-point line. The try is successful. The covering official does not indicate a three-point try and does not signal three points after the goal. The Team A coach rushes to the table and requests a 60-second time-out to discuss a correctable error. It is determined neither official clearly observed A1's location before the player jumped to try.

No change can be made and two points are properly scored. The 60-second time-out remains charged to Team A. (5-8-4)

[Edit]: this case play indicates that when an official does not signal a 3-pt try, the CE window opens.

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

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

Erroneously Counting Or Canceling A Score ...
 

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".

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

Peace

2.10.1j

Always Listen To bob ...
 

100% Sure ...
 

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

Extreme But Simple Situation ...
 

I can certainly understand why the officials in the original post were confused. We have debated NFHS situations here on the Forum for similar situations, for example, deflected "passes", and deflected "shots", off of either offensive or defensive players, some being deflected off of body parts that are not hands, including "shots" or "passes" that were originally going "sideways" (east-west), all these being complex, and sometimes confusing, situations.

So let's look at an extreme situation, but we'll keep it as simple as possible. One important thing to remember is that the NFHS no longer requires a three point "basket" to be a try.

NFHS rules. First let's set it up. Ninety-four foot court, in a "stadium" setting with an extremely high ceiling, highest ceiling on the planet. Middle of a period so the clock and buzzer don't complicate matters in any possible manner.

A1 from deep in his backcourt, "throws" the ball forward, long, far, and very high. Ball hits the floor in the frontcourt six inches behind the three point arc, bounces off the floor and enters the basket, untouched by anybody.

Again, remember that the NFHS no longer requires a three point "basket" to be a try.

Discuss.

Three pointer. If the ball had bounced inside the arc it would be two points.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

Team 1 2 F
PSU 29 33 62
USU 42 39 81
Game Details
DATE
12/21/21
TIME
7:00 PM
ATTENDANCE
6945
SITE
Dee Glen Smith Spectrum, Logan, UT
REFEREES
Randy Richardson, Randy Heimerman, D.G. Nelson

Not correct and it doesn't matter where it bounces...

4.41.4 SITUATION B: A1’s three-point try is short and below ring level when it hits the shoulder of: (a) A2; or (b) B1 and rebounds to the backboard and through the basket.
RULING: The three-point try ended when it was obviously short and below the ring. However, since a live ball went through the basket, two points are scored in both (a) and (b). (5-1)

Whether it is a try or not a try, we are to treat it the same....we are not expected to attempt to determine the thrower's attempt. This case establishes that when a try (or thrown ball) is obviously short and drops below the level of the ring, the opportunity to score 3 points is over.

I swear I read that somewhere

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

Short ...
 

Nice citation.

"Short and below the ring" implies (can't be certain) that it hits a shoulder inside the three point arc.

What if the shoulder was simply below the ring but outside the three point arc?

Is the most important part of the interpretation that the "try ended"?

If so, hasn't the NFHS already decided that it doesn't have to be a try for it to be three points?

Is there a similar interpretation about a pass that "ended"?

Does the NFHS only limit three points to passes, trys, and deflected (blocked) trys, and not to deflections off of other body parts, or bounces off the floor?

Wouldn't it be nice if they stated that somewhere?

Aren't many deflections (blocks) below ring level?

Don't "deflectors (blockers)" often have inside the three point arc status.

Can a try be "deflected (blocked)" with a body part other than hand? Wrist? Forearm? Elbow? Upper arm? Shoulder? Head?

What's the most important part (purpose and intent) of Camron Rust's interpretation?

Lots of questions from me, with no definite answers for some questions.

I sometimes wish that the NFHS continued to limit three points to trys, as they did in ancient times.

Purpose And Intent ...
 

Seriously, this was not a rhetorical question.

I would really like to know, if at all possible.

I've actually had this question on my mind since the NFHS went from the ancient rule to the modern rule.

When the rule was first changed, I was actually pleased about the change, no longer having to differentiate between an alley oop pass and a try, but as I began deep diving into the rules, I became frustrated with the various (probably) unintended ramifications of the change.

https://tse2.explicit.bing.net/th?id...=0&w=300&h=300

The NCAA interp is that if the ball had a chance (interpret this loosely) to enter the basket, then treat it as a try (for scoring purposes). If the ball had no chance (had gone from above to below the level of the basket, was in a direction away from the basket) then treat it not as a try and score two points.

I'd treat FED the same.

I think that answers most of the questions.

Purpose And Intent Language ...
 

Thanks bob jenkins. Great purpose and intent layman's language explanation. I wish the NFHS would use similar language. Thanks for taking the time and making the effort to explain it to me. Merry Christmas.

I agree....the whole point of the rule change was that if a ball is thrown to the basket and you can't tell if it a try or pass, count it as if it were a try if it goes in. When there is no doubt about what it was...it's not going to the basket, much less going in, without someone else changing the direction so that it goes in, it is simply a live ball that got deflected into the basket, no different than it was prior to that rule change. Everyone understood that at the time. Now, people want to re-disect the rule to come up with silly outcomes that were never the intent.

You read that a try is over if the ball strikes the floor. Therefore, if a long throw bounces on the floor and then enters the basket, it cannot be worth three points. There is even an NFHS case play in which this happens (with or without the expiration of time at the end of a quarter.) Camron is astutely telling you that you incorrectly added a phrase stating where the ball bounces when you wrote “inside the arc.” He is pointing out that it doesn’t matter whether the ball bounces inside or outside the arc, merely the fact that it contacted the floor somewhere is enough to eliminate the possibility of a 3-point goal.

Pretty Good Basis ...
 

Another great purpose and intent explanation, mix this together with bob jenkin's explanation, add a pinch of salt, and one has a pretty good basis to make interpretations regarding such situations.

However, for the tens of thousands of officials who weren't the "everyone" around to remember somebody painting the first arcs on gymnasium floors, and then the subsequent alley oop rule change, it would be nice if the NFHS could somehow codify purpose and intent, with rule language changes, and casebook interpretations (please, no annual interpretations, or points of emphasis).

Also, was it simply an alley oop change, or were there also changes regarding the ball touching a defensive player who was inside the arc, as in a deflected (blocked) "throw"? And, of course the alley oop change also complicated the interpretation of goaltending.

Again, I sometimes wish that the NFHS continued to limit three points to trys.

If wishes were horses then beggars would ride,
If turnips were swords I’d have one by my side.
If ‘ifs’ and ‘ands’ were pots and pans
There would be no need for tinker’s hands!
(Scottish nursery rhyme)

For The Good Of The Cause (NFHS) ...
 

5-2-1: A successful try, tap or thrown ball from the field by a player who is located behind the team’s own 19-foot, 9-inch arc counts three points. A ball that touches the floor, a teammate inside the arc, an official, or any other goal from the field counts two points for the team into whose basket the ball is thrown.

5.2.1 SITUATION A: A1 attempts a three-point goal. B1 slaps the ball: (a) while it is in downward flight outside the cylinder, but above the ring level; or (b) while it is in the cylinder after bouncing off the ring. RULING: It is defensive goaltending in (a) and defensive basket interference in (b). Three points are awarded in both cases as a result of the violation. (9-11, 12)

5.2.1 SITUATION B: With 2:45 left in the second quarter, B1 has the ball on the left wing in Team B's frontcourt, standing behind the three-point arc. B5 makes a backdoor cut toward the basket. B1 passes the ball toward the ring and B5 leaps for the potential "alley-oop" dunk. The ball, however, enters and passes through the goal directly from B1's pass and is not touched by B5. RULING: Score three points for Team B. A ball that is thrown into a team's own goal from behind the three-point arc scores three points, regardless of whether the thrown ball was an actual try for goal.

5.2.1 SITUATION C: A1 throws the ball from behind the three-point line. The ball is legally touched by: (a) B1 who is in the three-point area; (b) B1 who is in the two-point area; (c) A2 who is in the three-point area; or (d) A2 who is in the two-point area. The ball continues in flight and goes through A's basket. RULING: In (a) and (b), three points are scored since the legal touching was by the defense and the ball was thrown from behind the three-point line. In (c), score three points since the legal touch by a teammate occurred behind the three-point line. In (d), score two points since the legal touch by a teammate occurred in the two-point area.

4.41.4 SITUATION B: A1’s three-point try is short and below ring level when it hits the shoulder of: (a) A2; or (b) B1 and rebounds to the backboard and through the basket. RULING: The three-point try ended when it was obviously short and below the ring. However, since a live ball went through the basket, two points are scored in both (a) and (b). (5-1)

Bounces On The Floor ...
 

5-2-1: A ball that touches the floor ... counts two points for the team into whose basket the ball is thrown.

5.1.1 SITUATION B: A pass, a tap or a try for field goal by A1 is in flight when the horn sounds indicating the expiration of time in the third quarter. The ball subsequently comes down several feet in front of the basket, strikes the floor without touching any player and bounces into the basket. RULING: When deemed a pass and not a try, the ball becomes dead immediately when the horn sounds. However, a try or tap by A1 towards A’s basket does not become dead until the try or tap ends, which it does when it touches the floor. Therefore, no points are scored. (4-41-2, 4, 5)

Weren't Those Lines Always There ???
 

What about a "thrown" ball from outside the arc that touches a teammate (or opponent) outside the arc on the shoulder and subsequently enters the basket?

Since many were not alive when arcs were first painting on gymnasium floors, and for the subsequent alley oop rule change, and thus weren't privy to comments on these rules revisions, and thus original purpose and intent, please base one's answer only on the current rule definition and the current casebook plays.

Note that I've changed the interpretation above to delete any reference to "short".

You cant remove the word "short" -- when the ball is short and DESCENDS below the ring height, the original throw / try ends. Ans subsequent deflection/ rebound into the basket is two points.

If the ball is "on the way up" and is deflected while STILL below the height of the ring, it's still a try / throw and worth three points.

IOW, stop focusing only on the location of the ball relative to the ring and start focusing on the whole play.

On The Way Up ...
 

Sorry, I thought that "short" referred to north/south, not up/down.

I was alive the watched the gym floor painter paint the original arc and agree with bob jenkins. I especially like his wording "on the way up".

However, I wish that the NFHS would add "on the way up" to its rulebbok and casebook, if not for anything else, then for the young'uns.

Always say "Merry Christmas" to bob.

There are no young officials worried about that play, you are. Quit being a proxy.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Exactly. It is not that deep. There are multiple locations where officials from all ranges follow certain situations and plays, this is not one that keeps them up at night.

Peace

Clarity ...
 

Perplexed three NCAA-M Division I officials, so odd three point arc plays aren't as perfectly clear as some would make them out to be..

Merry Christmas.

You don't know why the call was missed, changed or adjudicated the way it was.

And as usual you have taken this conversation so many different places you don't even know what we're referencing.

We're talking about you taking this conversation to the ball hitting the shoulder of somebody outside the three-point line.

No one is sitting around worrying about that. You're worrying about that, but then you try to pawn it off as "the youngins are wondering what to do". Quit with the passive aggressive posting. All these questions are for you. You're not representing all the young officials of the nation.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Cited Answers ...
 

Yes, I would like cited answers for everybody, and everybody incudes me.

Quit speaking for others. I didn't ask, and I didn't ask you to ask for me. That's the thing you do that perturbs me and turns me off about a lot of your posts. That's always your excuse when you take these topics off into outer space.

I'm more in touch with what young officials are trying to learn than you are. I know that just by the fact of what I see you post and see you ask.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Me, Myself, and I ...
 

Fine.

From anybody on the forum.

I will even accept two different answers from one poster, one based on the current the rule definition and the current casebook plays, and another based on purpose and intent, for those of us old enough to remember and understand the rule changes and the associated intent and purpose.

I am not totally ignoring Camron Rust, bob jenkins, and others, I would simply like to see how their purpose and intent explanations jive with current rule definitions and the current casebook plays.

Or, as a Forum member pointed out a few months ago in regard to disappearing interpretations and points of emphasis, (paraphrased) "Something in the current book to show a coach", or "Something in the current book to show a trainee official".

Of course, experienced veteran basketball officials would rely on current rule definitions, current casebook plays, and purpose and intent, but that is not what I'm asking.

Fools Rush In Where Wise Men Never Go (Ricky Nelson, 1963) …
 

Raymond is correct, I'm through asking questions. Gonna take the bull by the horns.

Here's my personal take on my "thrown" ball "shoulder" question (directly above).

Based on a purely academic reading of the current rule definition and the current casebook plays, three points (both teammate and opponent).

Based on recent purpose and intent explanations by Camron Rust, and bob jenkins (“below the ring height”, "on the way up", “can't tell if it a try or pass, count it as if it were a try if it goes in. When there is no doubt about what it was ... it's not going to the basket, much less going in, without someone else changing the direction so that it goes in, it is simply a live ball that got deflected into the basket.”), two points (even if these explanations may not be the "official" purpose and intent of the NFHS).

Real game for me, two points (could probably pull it off with a confident, authoritarian sounding, "It's not a try" lie to a coach).

Written test for me, unsure, but current citations seem to "prove" three points.

Sure, I sound "foolish", but at least I took somewhat of a stand and offered citations.

As Ricky Nelson sang, "Though I see the danger there, if there's a chance for me, then I don't care".

I am now fully prepared to deservedly take on the slings and the arrows.

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

I Wonder Wonder Who, Oouu Who (The Monotones, 1954) …
 

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

I Can't ...
 

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

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

Two Separate Situations ...
 

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).

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.

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.