Wrong player correctable error
 

Ok, here's a sitch. Both teams are in the bonus. B1 fouls A1. The officials mistakenly allow A2 to shoot the one-and-one. During A2's first FT, A3 fouls B3. The FT is successful. The officials correctly rule a false double foul and clear the lane for A2's second FT. A2's second attempt is also successful.

Officials then have B3 shoot his one-and-one at the other basket. B3's FTs are both successful. A2 inbounds the ball to A1, but A1 fumbles it and the ball goes OOB.

At this point, (before the ball becomes live for Team B's throw-in) Coach B notifies the officials that A1 should've shot the original one-and-one. Officials correctly rule that the error can still be corrected.

Exactly what do you do to correct this error?

Cancel A2 free throws and have A1 shoot a 1 and 1 withthe lane cleared. Then ball put back into play where B was to get it after the OOB. It won't make A coach or fans very happy but thats the correct way to administer the correction I believe.

Smoke

Wait a Second Here
 

Correctable errors can only be corrected at the first deadball after a live ball. By definition, the ball became live when B shot and made their 1 and 1. When A inbounded the ball after those free throws, the chance to correct the error passed by.

1) The error is correctable as per rule 2-10-2.
2) Cancel everything that happened during the wrongfully shot FT's--A2's 2 FT's, A3's foul, B'3 2 FT's -- as per rule 2-10-2
3) Go back and have A1 the shoot one-and-bonus with no one on the lanes.
4) Resume play at the POI, which is B's ball for a throw-in at the OOB spot closest to where the ball went OOB off of A1. Rule 2-10-6

Why cancel B's Free throws they were not in error? I think they should stand. That is why I think the coach would not be happy about the correction.

NVM - I read a little further and found the answer. What about 2-10-3 a. These points by B all occurred before the error was recognized?

By definition, you're wrong.

Correctable errors can be corrected until the first dead ball after the ball has become live <b>and the clock has properly started</b>. Rule 2-10-2. The first time that the clock started was on A2's throw-in after all of the FT's . The first dead ball <b>after</b> that was when A1 fumbled the throw-in OOB. That's when the error was caught. Legal play iow.

Well, both the NFHS and NCAA rulesmakers think that B's free-throws <b>shouldn't</b> stand. I don't make the rules; they do.

Btw, the NCAA cite is rule 2-11-3.

Ok, this is the correct answer, according the ruling I got at my most recent rules clinic. However, here's my problem. 2-10-4 says that you cancel the FT and any activity during the FT's (except intentional, flagrant, blah, blah.). However, B3's FT didn't occur during the erroneous FTs by A2.

So the rule explicitly tells us to cancel A3's common foul. But it doesn't seem to tell us to cancel the FTs that resulted from that foul. It doesn't say cancel the foul and any related activity. It just says the foul is cancelled.

Are B3's FTs cancelled b/c they were awarded erroneously? No.

Are B3's FTs cancelled b/c they were attempted by the wrong playe? No.

You can see where I'm going with this. Is this just a common sense thing that we do b/c it must be right even tho the rules don't seem to say it?

If there's no foul, there can be no FTs.

Good clarification
 

Thanks for the clarification. That is helpful as the season starts this week. I know that I sometimes forget about the little phrase "and the clock has started"

Thanks
David

This is the first deadball after a live ball, after the clock has properly started.

There's that common sense thing, but it doesn't say that in 2-10. It doesn't say to cancel the related activity. But the common sense thing would also be to just wipe out everything after the erroneous FTs and start over. And that's not what we're told to do.

I know that's the right answer, Tony. I know that's what they want us to rule. I'm just curious if it shouldn't be part of the rule.

Chuck, rule 2-10-4 says that you cancel any activity <b>during</b> a FT attempt by the wrong player except for unsporting, flagrant, intentional or technical fouls. A3's common foul is therefore cancelled, by rule. If you cancel A3's foul, you also cancel any succeeding FT's for that foul. Whatinthehell would you put B3 on the line for if no foul ever occurred?:confused:

B3's FT's are cancelled because B3 was <b>NEVER</b> fouled.

You're over-thinking this one.

Hey, you asked, Chuck. Why chastise me for agreeing with you?

All activity is cancelled except "unsporting, flagrant, intentional or technical fouls."

Is that better? ;)

That's the condensed version.

Do I get points for using more words?:)

You'll have to ask Chuck. Evidently, he's grading papers today. :p

:o You're right. I forgot that little fact. Good call.

But you did put him on the line. He scored two FTs and the rule doesn't say to cancel those FTs.

Obviously. :) And I'm having fun doing it, too. Seeing the ruling in writing forced me to go back to the actual rule and I noticed the "discrepancy", for lack of a better word. I'm going to suggest to my rep on the rules committee to add the phrase "and all related activity" to the rule.

True, but the error was not recognized until B3 had already made the shots. rule 2-11-3a (NCAA rules) also says:
- points scored, time consumed and additional activity, which may occur before the recognition of the error, shall not be nullified.

This is where my confusion still lies.

The rules sureasheck <b>do</b> say to cancel those FT's. B3 shot 2 <b>unmerited FT's</b>. Unmerited FT's are correctable under 2-10(b). The officials caught it and corrected it using 2-10-4--<i>"If the error is.....the awarding of an unmerited free throw, the free throw......<b>shall be cancelled.</b>"</i>

Think <b>two</b> correctable errors corrected on the play by the officials-- i.e. FT's by a wrong player <b>and</b> unmerited FT's taken.

Just ask yourself "<b>When</b> was the error recognized?". The answer is that the errors were recognized <b>after</b> all the FT's were taken. Iow, anything that happened <b>before</b> that except for the exceptions laid out in the rule is nullified. That includes A3's common foul.

That is the correct answer. Once the foul by A3 is cancelled, the FTs by B3 become unmerited. There are two separate correctable errors here.

Good explanation, JR! :)

Just to jump in on Chuck's side...if we are going to cancel the FT's, where are we going to inbound the ball following the correction? Are we going to say there is no way we should be on B's side of the court and just resume play following the correction (B to inbound as after any other FT). Remember had there been no error the ball would be on A's side of the court, but the rule says go back to the POI.

Further what if the error had been recognized right after B's FT's. By rule, after correcting the error we would rturn to the POI, therefore A1 would shoot his FT's, we cancel B3's FTs, and then walk back down to B's side of the court and hand A the ball.

I'm sure there will be a strong argument for resuming following A1's FT's but lets go back to the OP and change it ever so slightly and say that after A1 inbounded B1 tips it OB. Now I think its even harder to go against the rule and resume following A1's FT's.

1) Why <b>wouldn't</b> you simply just follow the rule book then? Or are you saying we should just forget about the rules?:confused: Somehow, I don't think that's very good advice at <b>any</b> time. If the rule says go back to the POI, then we go back to the POI.

2) Um, no, by rule you're wrong. We cancel B3's FT's,then we go to that POI The POI for cancelling B3's unmerited FT's would now be A2 wrongfully shooting his FT's, with <b>no</b> subsequent throw-in. We correct that by putting A1 on the line for 2 FT's and having the players line up on the lane lines for those FT's. A sureasheck <b>doesn't</b> get the ball if you follow the rules correctly.

3) Gee, I hate to break it to you but we <b>shouldn't</b> go <b>against</b> the rules, Boomer. Whether you or any of us personally like any rule or not isn't ever really a factor. If the POI following the corrections is team A getting a throw-in because B1 tipped the ball OOB, then you give team A that throw-in after all the corrections. That's called getting the play <b>right</b>!

First of all, you are right on point 2, since the ball hadn't become live, we could return to the improper player from A shooting as the POI and resume play accordingly. I missed that, and thank you for the correction.

With the other points, I wasn't advocating just making up my own rules or making a decision based on what I feel is equitable, but rather that it is a situation that is likely to be seen by coachs, fans, etc (all the people that doen't really understand the rule) as unfair. I know fair is based on the rules and we are responsible for creating fairness by getting the play right according to the rules. I'm just saying, I would hate to be the ref that has to tell B's coach that we are cancelling his team's FT's going to make A reshoot and then give A the ball back.

I relate this to a situation I had a couple of years ago where the table failed to let us know that A was in the bonus. We gave A the ball to inbound following foul 7 (table had miscounted, clearly had 7 marked just didn't count right) and proceeds to hit a 3 point-shot. B's stat-keeper realizes as the shoot is in the air that A should have been shooting FT's and B immediately calls a TO following the made shot. This brings us to the lovely situation of having to count the 3, then award A1 is FT's (he makes both) and then return to B's ball. All of this is based on rule, but it sure makes for a fired-up coach for B.

Which is why we as officials have to be very diligent about keeping track of team fouls. A mistake like this by the officials/table crew causes a team to get screwed. I wish the FED would rewrite the correctable error rule for this particular situation. Either discard the basket by A or say that the time to correct the error has passed once A scores any other points.

Right. I think the rule is this way on purpose -- both coaches need to watch for errors and stop them from happening. Otherwise, what looks like an advantage (look -- A isn't going to get to shoot the FTs to which s/he's entitiled) can turn into a disadvantage (as above).

I don't agree with this supposed philosophy behind the correctable error rule. It could be argued in this scenario that Coach A knew he should have been shooting free throws but let his team inbound the ball in hopes of a score followed by Coach A stopping play to correct the error.