I reported that 35 black had fouled 25 white on the floor, white ball out of bounce. As the ball was thrown in, 35 black was called for another foul. That made it his 5th, the coach from the black team said we had made a mistake on the previous call, it was 15 black not 35. So, I went to 25 white and asked him who had fouled him, his reply was 15. I then went back to the table and corrected my mistake. Is this the correct thing to do, since it was my mistake? Help, looking for answers.

yes.

Did you ask your partner what he thought?

You already reported #35 commited the foul. End of story. You then asked an opposing team member who was it that fouled you. If I was playing, I would tell you the number of the player who was the most dominant player. What is next, asking every player who is fouled, or not, "did he foul you?"

In your stitch it is not a correctable error. The game is over for #35! Sh!t happens, learn from it, move on!

I don't know about asking the player, but if you know you made a mistake get it right. Don't hide behind the idea that it is not correctable. We all make mitakes, it is how we deal with it that makes the difference. I strongly believe that good game managers work hard to make sure that "the crew" gets the calls right. Players and coaches respect that more I believe.

Ask Who?
 

I disagree with Thumpferee. If you know that you made an error get it fixed. I don't know that I would go to the opponent for their opinion, but I would check with my partner first and if they didn't see anything I might confer with the official scorer. I would not just come right out and ask the scorer who the foul was on, but question them in a way that they may be able to give me the answer that I was looking for. There have been times that I have accidentally reported the foul against the wrong team. On a shooting foul while I am locating the shooter I have switched the colors and reported the foul on the wrong team. I guess if this happens to thumpferee you would just say o'well, I messed up, tough luck lets move on. I would hope not. After the 1st free throw I went over to the table and corrected the problem and explained it to my partner and the coaches.

A classic.

Ask someone who has nothing to gain from telling you who the foul was on. There's only one or two people like this in the gym, it's your partner. If he agrees it was 35 then keep it 35, if he says 15, then report 15 instead. If he doesn't know tell the coach that the officials do not have definite knowledge that it wasn't 35 and that you may have made a mistake but there is nothing you can do about it.

Thanks Mark. I was hoping that someone would have caught that one =:)

You could use a Davism and tell the coach that since there's a question, the only fair thing is to give them both a foul. Either that, or you stick with the original call - his choice. ;)

Wow, you state this with such certainty. Too bad you're not correct:

2-11-11 tells us that mistakes in record keeping may be corrected by the referee at any time until the final score is approved. The issue here is not who actually fouled, but merely who the official reported to the scorer as the fouler. That is just record keeping. The referee has knowledge of the mistake and should fix it. The intent of the NFHS rules is that you don't penalize the kid because you misread the number.

I disagree Nevada
 

Nevada,
I disagree, this is not a record keeping error. A record keeping error would be the scorer writing down the wrong number or not recording a three or something of that nature. With that said I still say this is one of the things that you should try to correct, just cause it is the right thing. However if much more time elapses than the original post indicates, it is too late in my mind to do much about it... I am surprised however that the coach didn't mention this situation on the original foul....

Re: I disagree Nevada
 

Nevada was completely correct. Rule 2-11-11 is explicit in backing him up. Note:
(1) "Compare records with the visiting scorer after each goal, <b>each foul</b>, .....notifying the referee at once of any <b>discrepancy</b>".
(2) "A bookkeeping mistake may be <b>corrected at any time until the referee approves the final score</b>".

It is <b>not</b> a correctible error under R2-10. It <b>is</b> an error that may be corrected at any time until the game ends. Rule book sez so.

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Jan 5th, 2005 at 11:26 AM]

Re: Re: I disagree Nevada
 

The question is whether this can be defined as a bookkeeking error or an official's error. To me, a bookkeeping error in this case would be if the official reported the foul on #35 and the scorer recorded the foul on #25. But the official reported the foul on #35 and the scorer recorded the foul on #35, so no bookkeeping error. The official reported the foul on the wrong player. So it's an official's error - one which is not defined as correctable by rule. Would I correct it? Maybe - depends on how soon afterwards I was enlightened about it and who it was that enlightened me.

JR take another look buddy
 

JR,
You completely misunderstood my post. I am not saying bookkeeping errors can't be corrected, I know they can, when they can, and that they should be corrected. My point is that this is not a bookkeeping error, it is an officials error, they reported it incorrectly, it was not recoreded incorrectly. The scorer recorded what the official reported IE officials error. I also agree that by definition of 2-10 it is not correctable, but the right thing to do, if you have the definite knowledge is to assign the foul to the correct player, even though the closest thing we have to apply is 2-3, because no where in the book does it cover what to do when we report the wrong number.....

Re: Re: I disagree Nevada
 

IMO he's both right & wrong.

He's right because yes, a *record keeping* error can be corrected at any time.

He's wrong because the way I read it he implies the rules allow & even *encourage* us to let the coach (or whoever)have input on who the foul was on.

In the sitch the foul was reported on #35. When the scorer checks off another foul on #35 that is *not* a record keeping error. If you're *sure* the foul is on #35 there is no support in the book for you to change it based on anything anyone else tells you. If, when questioned, you realize the foul isn't on #35 then yes, fix it. If you have some doubt then sure, go to your partner for help (geeze, don't ask the players fergawdsake). If you have the foul on #35 then it stands, period.

Re: Re: Re: I disagree Nevada
 

Gotta agree with that. That's exactly what I was trying to (maybe clumsily) get across. If the officials are sure that a mistake on a foul # was made, it can be corrected at any time until the game ends. If the officials aren't completely sure, or they can't agree amongst themselves- iow any doubt at all- then you can't change it. The coach may ask you to check however. Might cost him a TO to do so though. They never do get a vote.

Re: Re: I disagree Nevada
 

These are bookkeeping mistakes, not officials' errors. The case here involves the official reporting the wrong player. This is like the official signaling three-pt basket incorrectly. It's a correctable error, but only for a short time. If, however, the official signals correctly but the scorer records it incorrectly; that can be corrected as long as the referee hasn't approved the final score.

how is it a bookkeeping error??
 

Snaqwells,
How is this a bookkeeping error? If the official eroneously reports the wrong number that is not a bookkeeping error...so none of this fits under bookkeeping at least in my humble opinion..

When the ref reported #35, why didn't the table crew and the coach (and the player for that matter) question it right away? If #35 was nowhere near the play, it would be appropriate to ask, do you mean #35 or #15? The ref can do a quick review (maybe ask partner if necessary) and get the number correct right away. Asking players is not a good idea.

I suppose in the play in question, since it happened right away, the referees could consult and decide if the last foul was on #35 or #15. If there is not DEFINITE knowledge it was reported wrong, then it should be left alone.

In general,Once in the books and play has continued, seems it is too late to change your mind. Thisis is not a correctable error, nor a bookkeeping error. There is no description of "fixing" this type of mistake in a certain amount of time. What if it happened in the first quarter, then #35 gets into foul trouble with two minutes remaining. Coach says, HEY, wasn't that early foul actually on #15, not #35? The referee is supposed to remember this, and change it???

Garbage in = Garbage out
 

It sounds as if there is a general opinion that the only thing that constitutes a bookeeping error is when the guy running the pencil writes the wrong thing. I disagree.

The book is written record of the relevant events of the game (points, fouls, etc.). The entire crew is responsible for keeping it correctly. The officials are responsible for gathering and communicating the information. The scorekeepers are responsible for recording it. A breakdown in any part of that system may result in a bookeeping error.

In this situation, there was neither an error in judgement nor a misapplied rule. Those would be mistakes by the official. There was a mistake in recording who commited the foul. That is a bookeeping error.

It mattereth not whether the scorekeeper mis-recorded correct information or correctly recorded mis-information. It's still a bookeeping error. Fix it if you are able to.

Re: Garbage in = Garbage out
 

Which is exactly what Rule 2-11-11 states that you can legally do. That rule specifically refers to a discrepancy regarding fouls, refers to it as a "bookkeeping mistake", and also very specifically states that this discrepancy concerning fouls can be corrected at any time up to the end of the game.

For all those saying anything different, can you cite a rule- any rule- that would contradict this rule and back up your position?

Bookkeeping
 

JR, the position that it is an officials error is just as justifiable as the stance that it is a bookkeeping error. No one disputes that bookkeeping errors can be resolved at any time. The dispute arises as to whether this is a bookkeeping dispute or an officials error. If you look up bookkeeper in the dictionary, it says "one who records the accounts or transactions of a business". It doesn't mention them being one who reports (ie the R or U in our scenario)...so I am going with this not being a "bookkeeping" error but an officials error.

My .02

Unless you and your partner know for sure thst you reported the foul on the wrong player you better live with it.

1) If I were the opposing coach I would be upset if another coach says "wait a minute he doesnt have 5 fouls" and you change it.

2) Where is the coach and his game management skills. Doesn't he know when a player has 4 fouls- Shame on Him!

3) Most score keeper signal the bench when players have fouls that are getting close (many scoreboards have it too)

4) The officials should know this too. A good official knows when players are getting close and can tell player to be careful, or not give them the 5th foul on a cheap foul.

Re: Bookkeeping
 

How can you argue against a rule? That's what I'm finding hard to understand.

Rule 2-11-11 specifically refers to "fouls". It says that if there is a discrepancy concerning "fouls", then it's a bookkeeping mistake (actual terminology used right outa the rule) and it can be corrected until the referee approves the final score. That's not my "position". That's what that NFHS rule states. If you can cite anything different from the NFHS rule or case books that would negate that rule, I'm certainly open to have my mind changed. I'm just not aware of anything anywhere that says that this rule isn't applicable.

the discrepency is in the recording not the reporting
 

JR, as was mentioned above, the discrepency would be if the official reported number 25 and it was recorded to number 35. That is a bookkeeping error.

If the official reports # 35 and the bookkeeper correctly records it, then it isn't a bookkeeping error. Now if the official goes back in time and says "oh man, that foul should have been on # 15" it still isn't a bookkeeping mistake, it is an officials error.

Now since you are stuck on this rule, 2-11-11, according to the first sentence the bookkeeper must notify the referee. So even if we take this situation and try and make it a bookkeeping error, the only way it could fit into 2-11-11 is if the bookkeeper says, "um hey mr Referee, I think the foul was on #25".

Now that last paragraph is ridiculous and I know it, but I am trying to point out that just because the word foul appears in that rule does not mean that all things to do with fouls are bookkeeping related.

Re: the discrepency is in the recording not the reporting
 

#15 commits a foul. The official calls the foul. For whatever reason the official reports #35. The error is in the reporting, that is a bookkeeping function. Please note that the rule talks about a bookkeeping error, not a bookkeeper error. Bookkeeping is the process, not the person. If the official is certain that he reported it incorrectly, it can be changed at any time before the final score is approved.

BITS I disagree
 

If you look above at the definition of bookkeeping, it is not the reporting. You have a good point, but I don't think that it is valid. I think that the rule is there to correct an error by the bookkeeper in recording things. The rule also refers to comparing the books to find the discrepency. If the books both record #35 then there is no way to discover the discrepency. I am not advocating not changing anything, I am advocating that we be sure we don't use 2-11-11 as the reason as, it isn't bookkeeping that is wrong but the reporting. Technically you can't correct it.

If you look at the case book, all of the cases in 2.11.10 discuss the official properly reporting/awarding the information and it is just recoreded incorrectly. These are all corrected under the bookkeeping error provision.

If you report a foul incorrectly, in my mind that is an inadvertant setting aside of a rule specifically 2-7-5 and 2-9-1

case book 2.10.1 is the closest I can find to this situation. If you read it, in situation A where the official fails to signal, and the scorer records 2 pts, it is listed as a correctable error if discovered within the proper time frame, not a bookkeeping error. In situation B where the off official signals the 3 but it is recorded as a 2, that is listed as a bookkeeping error. So the two (reporting, recording) are seperate acts, not one process. If they were one process then A would be correctable at anytime, but because the official fails to signal correctly (just like signalling a wrong number)it is an officials error, not bookkeeping...

Re: BITS I disagree
 

The bottom line is that you <b>still</b> haven't cited a rule or a case book play that would negate the very specific language of Rule 2-11-11. Nothing that you've cited above does. Case book play 2.10.1 isn't applicable, and neither are any of the rules that you cited. I think that you should take this one to your local assignor/evaluator/rules guru and get their opinion on it- in case it ever does come up in a game that you're doing. Might be a good idea imo.

JR I still disagree
 

JR,
Is it your feeling that reporting of the foul and recording of the foul are one and the same?

If it is then we will never agree, and I believe that case 2.10.1.f.A specifically points out that there is a difference between the two.

If you don't believe that they are one and the same, then if the scorer correctly records it, it isn't a bookkeeping error but an officials error, which technically isn't one of the correctable errors.

[Edited by cmathews on Jan 5th, 2005 at 08:42 PM]

I disagree with your disagreement :)
 

It appears that we're in agreement that fixing the mistake is the right thing to do. Really that is the important thing.

As far as the specifics and our interpretation of 2-11-11, this is admittedly a gray area. But I believe that 2.10.1.A is fundamentally different situation than incorrectly reporting a fouler's number.

An official is required, by rule, to signal that a shot is a 3. There cannot be a 3-point shot without the active participation of the official. In essence, he is awarding the extra point for his judgement that the shot was taken from behind the line. If the signal does not happen, the basket counts for only 2, the default case. Failing to perform this required duty is handled under 2-10 and the timeframe for correcting this failure is clearly spelled out.

Reporting an incorrect number is not failing to perform a required duty, it is simply a mistake in handling the reporting aspect of the bookkeeping.

Taking it to an admittedly absurd extreme, imagine you call a foul on #15, but report it on #12. But there is no #12 in the book. Do we now add #12 to the book and assess an administrative T? If we class this as an official's error, then that's the way it has to be, right? Things called official's errors are called that because, in the end, everybody is stuck with the erroneous result -- like the 3 that is counted as a 2. The only exceptions are a handful of correctable errors detailed in 2-10.

Also, just because a bookkeeping error cannot be discovered by comparing the books does not mean that there wasn't one or that it cannot be fixed. Earlier this year I had a MS game where neither scorekeeper was keeping team fouls. It was not brought to my attention by the scorekeepers. It was not discovered by comparing the books. Was there a bookkeeping error? Most definitely.

Like I said earlier, the important thing is getting it fixed when you can. But I do believe that the definition of bookkeeping mistakes encompasses mistakes that occur in anywhere in the process of keeping the books, and that includes mistakes in reporting.

getting it right is the most important thing for sure
 

I do agree with getting it right...and while your point is an absurd extreme it is a good point... However I would liken it to more of a stepping up and reporting 12 then realizing that it was 15....so I still disagree that the reporting is part of the bookkeeping but as long as the result is corrected that is the important thing :)

and the best part is that it makes us all get in the books to read and re read things we thought we had memorized :) which is way more valuable than how we arive at the correct solution

[Edited by cmathews on Jan 5th, 2005 at 09:19 PM]

This is getting nuts!

Let's use some common sense here. The officials are going to have to be aware there is an issue.

If I call 4 fouls on a player and my partner calls one and I know he should be going out and I dont get something from th table I will find out what is happening.

If I misreported a foul in the first quarter I am not going to fix it in the fourth because we have called a bunch (unless there is something that really just made the foul memorable for some reason)

I have reported a foul wrong, and went back and changed it but it was within a play or so of messing it up.

We just should not get wrapped around the axle on what bookeeping means and splitting hairs on a definition.

Just for the record, BITS has stated my stance on this quite well. I agree with what he wrote here 100%.
The call on the action on the floor was correct, after that everything else is recordkeeping. The transmission process of getting that information into written form broke down.

To me the scorer is merely the stenographer for the offical on the court. If the official had a pen and paper in his pocket that he pulled out and recorded the fouls (as is done in soccer) or if he physically went over to the table after each foul and wrote in the book himself, and made a mistake in doing so (say wrote 15 instead of 35), is there anyone who would contend that this is not a bookkeeping mistake?

To insist that this is an official's mistake and not a bookkeeping mistake is playing semantics and failing to recognize the bigger picture; the end result of the mistake was a bookkeeping error. It doesn't matter who caused it (the official or the scorer); all that is important is the result.
There really was a foul on the court, the people charged with recording that foul in writing didn't do it properly, and a player got charged with a foul committed by a teammate. That is bookkeeping.

Lastly, it my understanding that an "official's mistake" is something done on the playing court having to do with the administration of the game. It is a physical action. Handing the ball to the wrong team for a throw-in as in 7.5.2 Sit B or shooting FTs in the wrong order as in 8.7 Sit B are two good examples.
There is no way to go back in time and not hand that kid the ball, but pencils do have erasers!

I'm now quite glad that I went back a month and posted on this thread, since it has generated even more responses and thought. I actually felt that we did not originally give it proper discussion. Perhaps the NFHS will even write a Case Book play on this to clarify it for everyone just because of our extended discussion. It wouldn't be the first time.

[Edited by Nevadaref on Jan 6th, 2005 at 06:21 AM]

First, correctable errors (the 2-10 variety) and their time limits don't apply here. Correctable errors all involve scoring plays (direction/basket, who the shooter is, counting/cancelling a score, missing/adding a FT), NOT fouls.

For the "bookkeeping mistake" school - I guess you could go by this, but I don't think this falls under that heading or really fits with the "comparing fouls, points, etc." argument that has been brought up.

My take on this is that, as long as you are certain the foul was on #15 and not #35, you have to change the book - using three reasons/examples:

1) Common sense - no matter who we report the foul on, #15 committed it (ask Chuck for an explaination of the philosophy/metaphysics behind this :p). Don't penalize #35 for what he didn't do.

2) Rule 4-14-1 - a player is disqualified upon coach notification after committing his/her fifth personal foul. Note that the rule doesn't say "when the scorebook has five fouls recorded for that player."

3) D-I examples: many times during a game that I'm scorekeeping, I'll record a foul, and the official will come over a few minutes later (usually during a media timeout) and correct the foul - saying it was on #X instead of #Y. The fact that this has happened multiple times, with many different officials (including some on the "Top Five" list :p) indicates to me that it's acceptable by rule. (Or, alternately, if they didn't correct this, their assignors would take away games for being boneheads.)