During a girl's 8th grade game the home team was at the line to shoot the first shot of a bonus. My partner was trail and at his position. He saw a lane violation on the visitors. The shot missed so he whistled a lane violation. I gave the ball back to the shooter who then made the first and missed the second.

At the next dead ball, my partner told me that he made a mistake; the girl's foot was on the volleyball line and not the lane mark.

What would have been the proper procedure to correct this mistake had we caught it right away?

With the violation call, this doesn't fit under correctable errors so finding out about it at the first dead ball doesn't help. Basically it's a booted call. The only recourse is to talk about it with your partner and not boot it again. If the coach gets on you about it, just explain what happened, tell him or her there's nothing you can change now, and assure them it won't happen again. The only other way to handle it is to call it an inadvertent whistle and get it right.

[Edited by Junker on Nov 8th, 2005 at 05:38 PM]

By "right away," I assume you mean after he made the call and before the FT was awarded. If no one had possession when the whistle blew, then you go to the AP arrow.

Once you shoot the FT again, you can't correct it.

Just to play DA, is this really not a correctable error?

Isn't a correctable error one where a player is awarded an unmerited FT? Was this FT merited? The official made a mistake resulting in an extra FT. How is this different than the official awarding 2 shots when it should be 1?


While the typical correctable error is caused by provding the wrong penalty for a foul, is it that the required path to be a correctable error?


[Edited by Camron Rust on Nov 8th, 2005 at 07:38 PM]

Cameron,
I couldn't agree more, but the way I looked at was that this was a booted judgement call, not a mistake on applying the rules. I definitely see your point and thought of it myself before I posted. I am interested to see how others look at it.

"Unmerited FT" must be awarded because of a "misapplication of the rules." I suppose looking at the wrong line <i>might</i> count as a misapplication.

This is not an unmerited FT.
The original FT was properly awarded for a foul of some kind. Whether or not the violation call that allowed a substitute FT was correct has no bearing on the classification of the FT as merited.
The bottom line is that no rule was inadvertently set aside, a call was simply missed. Therefore, this is not a correctable error situation.


Edited for the sanity of Mr. Spelling Guy. :)

[Edited by Nevadaref on Nov 8th, 2005 at 11:49 PM]