Did I get this right?

[ranjo]

This weekend - AAU Boys 15U invitational. My partner calls a blocking foul on a missed shot attempt and is reporting the foul. The defender believes he has been unfairly penalized and loses his composure. I gave him a few seconds to get his act together, and when he can't, I charge him with a technical foul.

My partner starts to administer the shots - We shoot the first one (which misses) and he realizes the blocking foul shots should come first, but the wrong shooter has taken the shot thinking the technical would be shot first.

I cancel the free throw and tell the coaches we have a correctable error as the wrong shooter has taken the shot, and even if he had made it, it would have been canceled anyway. (within the allowable time frame of course)

We then proceed to shoot the shots in the correct order and award the ball out of bounds to the offended team.

My question is - Would you have done it any differently? Other than letting it happen in the first place, did we do everything by the rule book?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by ranjo

My partner starts to administer the shots - We shoot the first one (which misses) and he realizes the blocking foul shots should come first, but the wrong shooter has taken the shot thinking the technical would be shot first.

If you just administered the free-throws in the wrong order, then you do not have a correctible error that's fixable,by rule. The first free-throw was merited; it was just shot in the wrong order. You can correct the order in which the FT's are shot, but there is no rule that will allow you to cancel the FT that has been already taken.

The first FT that was missed counts as a legitimate attempt towards the FT's awarded for the technical foul. You now put the original, fouled player on the line for his 2 warranted FT's. You follow those 2 FT's by administering the second technical foul FT to any opposing player.....and you then follow that by the throw-in at center naturally.

[Dribble]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

If you just administered the free-throws in the wrong order, then you do not have a correctible error that's fixable,by rule. The first free-throw was merited; it was just shot in the wrong order. You can correct the order in which the FT's are shot, but there is no rule that will allow you to cancel the FT that has been already taken.

The first FT that was missed counts as a legitimate attempt towards the FT's awarded for the technical foul. You now put the original, fouled player on the line for his 2 warranted FT's. You follow those 2 FT's by administering the second technical foul FT to any opposing player.....and you then follow that by the throw-in at center naturally.

I disagree with Jurassic...rules 2-10-1b and c state that "Officials may correct an error if a rule is inadvertently set aside and results in: b) Awarding an unmerited free throw c) Permitting a wrong player to attempt a free throw."

Further, 2-10-4 states, "If the error is a free throw by the wrong player...or the awarding of an unmerited free throw, the free throw and all activity during it, other than unsporting, flagrant, intentional or technical fouls shall be canceled."

Thus, since you must administer the FTs in the order the fouls occurred, then ONLY A1 is permitted to shoot the fouls for the missed FG attempt. Then any player on team A can shoot the technical FTs. The first attempt was both unmerited at the time and the wrong player attempted the FT.

I don't know how you could justify separating the technical FTs. Please provide a rule reference if I'm wrong. Thanks.

And yes, other than avoiding the situation all together, I think you handled the error correctly.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Dribble

I disagree with Jurassic...rules 10-1-b and c state that "Officials may correct an error if a rule is inadvertently set aside and results in: b) Awarding an unmerited free throw c) Permitting a wrong player to attempt a free throw."

Further, 10-4 states, "If the error is a free throw by the wrong player...or the awarding of an unmerited free throw, the free throw and all activity during it, other than unsporting, flagrant, intentional or technical fouls shall be canceled."

Thus, since you must administer the FTs in the order the fouls occurred, then ONLY A1 is permitted to shoot the fouls for the missed FG attempt. Then any player on team A can shoot the technical FTs. The first attempt was both unmerited at the time and the wrong player attempted the FT.

I don't know how you could justify separating the technical FTs. Please provide a rule reference if I'm wrong. Thanks.

And yes, other than avoiding the situation all together, I think you handled the error correctly.

What rule book are you using? In the NFHS rulebook, rule 10 relates to technical fouls. Rule 2-10 relates to correctable errors.

Now... you tell me.... if a player shoots a technical free throw out-of-order, what correctible error has been committed under rule 2-10-1?
- Did the team not get the first FT for the technical foul that they should have? Yes, they sureasheckdid. Can't use 2-10-1(a) then...
- Was an unmerited FT awarded? Nope, the first FT that was taken for the "T" certainly was merited. Can't use rule 2-10-1(b) either....
- Did a wrong player take the first FT for the technical foul? Nope, any player can shoot the FT's for a "T". There goes 2-10-1(c) out the door too....
- Did they attempt a FT at the wrong basket? Uh, no. Bye-bye rule 2-10-1(d). That one doesn't apply.
- Did anyone erroneously count or cancel a score? Not as far as I can see. That takes care of rule 2-10-1(e).

That's all the correctable errors that there are, Dribble, i.e. the 5 listed under rule 2-10-1. Shooting free throws out-of-order isn't a correctable error per se. If all 4 FT's had been shot out-of-order, you cannot go back and re-shoot them. There is nothing in the rules that will allow you to do that.

And if you still don't believe me, read casebook play 8.7SitB. That might just change your mind.

[ChrisSportsFan]

I'm with JR on this. Also, if you called the T, you should be administering the free throws.

[Dribble]

Sorry, I accidentally omitted the "2" before my rule reference...I've made the edit...

Casebook play 8.7b doesn't apply because all the FTs haven't been administered as per that case. Thus, the case you present isn't applicable. The official caught himself following only one free throw that wasn't merited yet at that point in the game.

I think we can argue the wording of the correctable errors in this situation. I argue that the 1st correctable error situation (a) also applies in addition to what I posted above because you failed to award a merited free throw, which was the one for the foul on the FG try.

You still haven't provided a reference that allows you to interrupt the sequence of FTs. i.e. shoot the 1st technical FT, then the two FTs for the shooting foul, followed by the 2nd T. That makes no sense to me at all.

[Dribble]

Originally Posted by ChrisSportsFan

I'm with JR on this. Also, if you called the T, you should be administering the free throws.

You can have situations where the calling official for the technical does not administer the FTs. i.e. it's still a precarious moment, it's in the 1st half, you'd be administering right where the coach for team B is and he's harping. Just get out of there...

[Snake~eyes]

Originally Posted by ChrisSportsFan

I'm with JR on this. Also, if you called the T, you should be administering the free throws.

Not necessarily - the officials have the option of switching on technical fouls. On player Ts I like to go to tableside to explain to the coach why a technical foul was issued.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Dribble

1) Casebook play 8.7b doesn't apply because all the FTs haven't been administered as per that case. Thus, the case you present isn't applicable. The official caught himself following only one free throw that wasn't merited yet at that point in the game.

I think we can argue the wording of the correctable errors in this situation. I argue that the 1st correctable error situation (a) also applies in addition to what I posted above because you failed to award a merited free throw, which was the one for the foul on the FG try.

1) What part of the statement-- "However, since all merited free throws were attempted, it does not constitute a correctable error situation"-- in case book play 8.7.SitB don't you understand? That statement applies completely to what we're discussing. The first merited technical foul free throw was taken, according to Ranjo.

Argue all you want. Let me know when you find some rules language to back up your argument. Until then.......

[Dribble]

The part that I don't understand because it doesn't apply is "Since ALL merited free throws were attempted." Re-read the OP, only ONE FT was attempted; thus, your case does not apply!

I can understand the casebook sit and the logic behind it if ALL merited FTs were taken. What's the point of going back and re-shooting all 4 FTs if they were all taken?!? This situation is unique to that.

Does that make sense to you?

[bob jenkins]

My take: If the official "announced" (using a broad definition of the word) that the first FT was for the T, then it was for the T and it's not correctable -- continue with the FT for the second T, then those for the foul. If the official "announced" that it was for the blocking foul, then it was for the blocking foul, and is a correctible error. If the official made no "annoncement", then I think you have to go with "intent" -- and here it seems both the official and the player understood that the T was being shot.

[ChrisSportsFan]

Originally Posted by Dribble

You can have situations where the calling official for the technical does not administer the FTs. i.e. it's still a precarious moment, it's in the 1st half, you'd be administering right where the coach for team B is and he's harping. Just get out of there...

How is he continuing to harp? He was just T'd and your partner has told him he has to sit. If anything, stand on the other side of the lane. If he's going to harp, he'll do it if you're at the other end of the court, regardless and I hope my partner(s) will deal accordingly.

Snake-eyes, when it comes to player T's, I'll still give the explaination but I'm not hanging out to chatter. I've got free throws to administer. That's the way they want it done in my parts.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

If the official made no "announcement", then I think you have to go with "intent" -- and here it seems both the official and the player understood that the T was being shot.

That's exactly the way that I read Ranjo's original post......

[Dribble]

Originally Posted by ChrisSportsFan

How is he continuing to harp? He was just T'd and your partner has told him he has to sit. If anything, stand on the other side of the lane. If he's going to harp, he'll do it if you're at the other end of the court, regardless and I hope my partner(s) will deal accordingly.

Snake-eyes, when it comes to player T's, I'll still give the explaination but I'm not hanging out to chatter. I've got free throws to administer. That's the way they want it done in my parts.

No, his player was T'd, so he doesn't lose his coaching box. We'll have to agree that your association has different mechanics, but Snake-eyes is correct in that switching is an optional mechanic following a technical (for both NCAA and NFHS).

[ranjo]

Thanks to those that replied. We all try to use both the rule book and common sense when we make calls and to correct things when we screw up. Unfortunely, sometime the rules don't support common sense and the rules have to take precedent. (How many of you have given the ball to the wrong team for a throw-in and whistled it back after the thow-in ended when you reconized your error.)

I did like JR's answer and the reasons for it. Truth be known, nobody in the gym would have known the difference if we shot the penalities out of order or not. In retrospect I should have let it go, but I try to use these out of season contests to improve and learn. Funny how a little pressure changes you thought processes.