Penalty for Delay

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Kajun Ref N Texas

And I have to keep going back to the definition of a correctable error, "Officials may correct an error if a rule is inadvertently set aside and results in: a) Failure to award a merited free throw." which provides guidance in this situation.

Just to stick my two cents in - I wonder if the difference is:
a)Failure to award a merited free throw, which is not the same as:
a)Failure to call a technical foul, which results in free throw(s)

Subtle difference. The free throw is not merited until after the T is called. In the case of the 2 shots vs. 1-and-1, the foul had been called, but the proper free throws had not been administered. If you don't call the foul, you can't go back and correct the free throws, because the foul hadn't been called. A missing step in the process, so to speak.

I think the rules committee picked very specific examples as to what can be corrected, just to avoid the possibility of officials using the "correctable error" reason to go back and fix whatever they want. Once an illegal sub comes in the game, you can't correct that. If there's a timeout request that results in an inadvertant whistle, you can't correct that as well. I can see your point, but it doesn't quite fit into the specific listed correctable errors.

[ronny mulkey]

Originally Posted by Kajun Ref N Texas

That's not what 10-7 Penalty says. It says "Penalized when discovered."



I see your point, but my point is that we intended to call the rules infraction as evidenced by the warning. The only reason we didn't issue the T was because we didn't realize it was the second warning. We didn't consciously make a decision not to issue the T. We didn't issue it because the scorer didn't inform us that the warning was the second. Just like the 7th foul that we didn't shoot on.

And I have to keep going back to the definition of a correctable error, "Officials may correct an error if a rule is inadvertently set aside and results in: a) Failure to award a merited free throw." which provides guidance in this situation.

I see a difference in this situation and not calling a common foul, technical foul or any other rule violations, because we actually made the call (the warning) but applied the rule incorrectly and now have an opportunity to correct it.

Good points, Cajun but I believe the merited f. throws would occur after you place your hands together for the T instead of when we were notified of a 2nd warning. If we expect coaches and players to realize that it is a technical for any second offense without consulting with the scorer, then isn't it logical to expect the official to know that he should have administered a T. Failing to administer a T is not the same as setting aside a merited f. throw. IMO.

[Kajun Ref N Texas]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

I can see your point, but it doesn't quite fit into the specific listed correctable errors.

Reread the rule and list the specific listed correctable errors and you'll find it fits there perfectly.

You are all giving me the reasons I am wrong about 2-10-1 without showing me anything authoritative about the rule.

Let me restate,

2-10-1 "...Officials may correct an error if a rule is inadvertently set aside and results in: a. Failure to award a merited free throw.

It seems pretty simple to me.

Was a rule inadvertently set aside? YES

Was there failure to award a merited free throw? Yes.

Correctable Error.

Not only do I believe it is within the letter of the rule, I also believe it is within the spirit of the rule. What was the FED's intention? Two free throws on the second delay.

Here is the biggest reason that it should be corrected. We screwed it up and have an oppurtunity to correct it. To not correct it, gives an advantage to the offending team. If you're going to give the second warning the FED wants it to result in two FTs. If we ignore the fact that we can correct this error by rule we are cheating the non-offending team.

[Nevadaref]

First, Kajun, you are right about the T for the excessive time-out. This can be penalized until the officials leave the floor at the end of the game and end their jurisdiction.

Second, I believe that Chuck Elias gave the correct ruling on the second warning snafu. No foul was called, so no FTs are merited.

My comments to Kajun's proposed correctable error argument are in RED.

Originally Posted by Kajun Ref N Texas

Reread the rule and list the specific listed correctable errors and you'll find it fits there perfectly.

You are all giving me the reasons I am wrong about 2-10-1 without showing me anything authoritative about the rule. I'll do the best that I can. However, this is a grey area and I am no authority, so you can either accept my decision or continue to support your own. It's up to you.

Let me restate,

2-10-1 "...Officials may correct an error if a rule is inadvertently set aside and results in: a. Failure to award a merited free throw.

It seems pretty simple to me.

Was a rule inadvertently set aside? YES

Was there failure to award a merited free throw? NO
There was a failure to charge a technical foul. Under these circumstances, the referee should have called a FOUL, but instead mistakenly charged a WARNING for delay. What is the proper penalty for a warning? Just a notation in the scorebook. There are NO FTs awarded for a warning. So no merited FTs went unawarded. This is an officials' mistake not a correctable error. We have lots of those documented in the book and nothing can be done about them other than a "Sorry coach, we screwed up."

Correctable Error. I don't believe so.

Not only do I believe it is within the letter of the rule, I also believe it is within the spirit of the rule. What was the FED's intention? Two free throws on the second delay. Probably is the within spirit of the rule, but I don't think the letter. There are many instances in the NFHS rules in which the officials goof and one team gets screwed. (One example is giving the ball to the wrong team for a throw-in. Once it gets touched inbounds--too late. See Case Book play 7.5.2 Sit B) It is unfortunate, but human error is part of the game.

Here is the biggest reason that it should be corrected. We screwed it up and have an oppurtunity to correct it. To not correct it, gives an advantage to the offending team. If you're going to give the second warning the FED wants it to result in two FTs. If we ignore the fact that we can correct this error by rule we are cheating the non-offending team. See my last comment.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

My opinion: Once the ball has become live, the game is not being delayed. It's then too late to assess the penalty for delay.

Agree.

[Hartsy]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

My opinion: Once the ball has become live, the game is not being delayed. It's then too late to assess the penalty for delay.

Yes, if the ball becomes live before you whistle for a delay, but the delay was called. Would you call a backcourt violation and then not penalize it?

Two delays results in a T. Two delays were called. Shoot the free throws.

Not that I would enjoy having to do it.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Hartsy

HMMMM. I'm not buying this. Penalized when discovered is a phrase that seems to apply here, and with a few of the other sitch's in this thread.

Read 3.4B and you'll buy it.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Kajun Ref N Texas

You are all giving me the reasons I am wrong about 2-10-1 without showing me anything authoritative about the rule.

Right. So are you. That's because there isn't anything that covers this. If there were, the thread (well, the relevant part, anyway) would be two posts long -- the Q and the A.

There *are* specific examples where a T should be called, but it's "too late." I don't know of any examples (including the excess TO example) where the T can be assessed after the fact. That doesn't mean this can't be the first.

[Kajun Ref N Texas]

OK then, at the end of the day, here's what happens:

We both called a violation for delay, we both inadvertently set aside the rule by issuing a second warning instead of issuing the T and the two shots.

You stuck with your rule error and got it wrong.

I corrected my rule error and goit it right.

[ronny mulkey]

There *are* specific examples where a T should be called, but it's "too late." I don't know of any examples (including the excess TO example) where the T can be assessed after the fact. That doesn't mean this can't be the first.[/QUOTE]

Bob,

I want to make sure that I understand what you are saying here. Team A requests a 6th T.O. with 5 minutes to play. The crew is not notified at this point that it is an excessive T.O. With 30 seconds left to play, the table calls you over and then alerts you that it was Team A's 6th T.O.

Are you saying that it is too late to penalize?

Mulk

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by ronny mulkey

There *are* specific examples where a T should be called, but it's "too late." I don't know of any examples (including the excess TO example) where the T can be assessed after the fact. That doesn't mean this can't be the first.

Bob,

I want to make sure that I understand what you are saying here. Team A requests a 6th T.O. with 5 minutes to play. The crew is not notified at this point that it is an excessive T.O. With 30 seconds left to play, the table calls you over and then alerts you that it was Team A's 6th T.O.

Are you saying that it is too late to penalize?

Mulk[/QUOTE]

I'm saying that I don't know of / recall any case play or interp that says to issue a T in this situation. So, I would not (but I could be wrong).

I am aware that the rule says "penalized when discovered." I just don't think that means what it says.

[Hartsy]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Read 3.4B and you'll buy it.

Yep. I bought it! The book is definitive on that situation.

I'm still not clear on the original question. Did I miss something?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Hartsy

Yep. I bought it! The book is definitive on that situation.

I'm still not clear on the original question. Did I miss something?

No. Some think the "error" can be corrected anytime (until the officials leave the floor). Some think it can be corrected in the "correctable error" timeframe. Some think it can be corrected until the ball becomes live.

Absent any definitive ruling by the FED, I think that's where we'll have to leave it.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

No. Some think the "error" can be corrected anytime (until the officials leave the floor). Some think it can be corrected in the "correctable error" timeframe. Some think it can be corrected until the ball becomes live.

Absent any definitive ruling by the FED, I think that's where we'll have to leave it.

And I agreed with Bob's thinking because it seemed the most logical for the situation- imo.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by ronny mulkey

Bob,

I want to make sure that I understand what you are saying here. Team A requests a 6th T.O. with 5 minutes to play. The crew is not notified at this point that it is an excessive T.O. With 30 seconds left to play, the table calls you over and then alerts you that it was Team A's 6th T.O.

Are you saying that it is too late to penalize?

Mulk

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

I'm saying that I don't know of / recall any case play or interp that says to issue a T in this situation. So, I would not (but I could be wrong).

I am aware that the rule says "penalized when discovered." I just don't think that means what it says.

But, JR, you do disagree with what Bob says here, right?