Right way to handle this situation?
 

8th grade AAU game.

Team A has ball. Non shooting foul called on Team B. Team A puts ball into play. About 15 seconds later a jump ball is called and Team B has possesion arrow. Coach of Team A jumps up and argues previous foul should have been 1 and 1. Turns out coach was right but was missed by scorekeeper and officials. At that point officials awarded foul shots to Team A. How should this have been handled?

Not being an official myself I thought it should have been a play-on situation.

If this was the first dead ball following the throw-in, then the error was still correctable and the officials were right to award the 1-1 FTs. Of course, this should have been done with only the shooter present and the ball awarded to Team B for an AP throw-in after the FT situation. That's the POI.

Nevadaref is absolutely correct. Just to fill in the rest of the story, if this is the second (or third or fourth or...) dead ball after the mistaken throw-in following the foul, then the error is not correctable.

The reason you go back and shoot the 1-1 with lane spaces empty and come back to the team B throw-in is that there has been a change of possession since the error was made. If there had been no change of possession, you would go back and shoot the 1-1, but fill the lane spaces and play on as normal.

Here's a question---if the arrow had been pointing in A's direction instead of B's, would this constitute a change of possession or not?

The phrase "change of possession" in this rule has always bothered me, since it's not a term that's defined in Rule 4. Does someone have a clear definition?

That's a great question. Even if the arrow is pointing to Team B, they haven't gotten possession yet, have they? The ball is dead, but there is no "possession", is there? :confused:

The rule says, "...and there has been no change of team possession since the error was made..."

While B has not taken possession, Team A no longer has possession of the ball, so possession has changed.

Absent a clarification/interp/case play from the NFHS, I would resume with AP.

Both of these quesstions are answered in 2.10.1A

The posts by Scrapper1 and BktBallRef shows that there are some questions.

Consider the following after team A is erroneously not awarded FTs and given a throw-in instead. After the throw-in,

a) Team B swats the ball out of bounds without gaining team control.
b) There is a held ball with the arrow pointing to A.
c) There is a held ball with the arrow pointing to B.
d) There is a foul by B1.
e) There is a foul by A1.

In each case, we have a dead ball and team B has not obtained team control. Which constitute a loss of team possession for the purposes of 2.10? I'd say a, b, and d, but I'll be darned if I could back it up with a rule or definition from the book.

Thoughts?

While there is no control, there is possession. It's not explicitly defined in the book but in can be fairly easily inferred. Possession is determined by who actually has the ball or who is due an upcoming throwin/FT through some infraction of the rules (or held ball). The instant the infraction occurs, the next possession is determined...by the penalty part of the rule that was violated or by the state of the arrow.

Good explanation, Camron. Thanks.

Team control or posession is very strickly defined in the rule book -
and it would have nothing to do with who is getting the ball based on a free throw or inbound pass that is yet to occur.
In this particular case there has been NO change of possession.
1) Foul
2) A inbounded the ball
3) Tie up this is not a change of possession or team Control - team B has never been in control at this point.

So shoot the FT lane empty go with the AP inbound at spot nearest tie up.

First, "control" < > "posession". You can have either one without the other. "Control" is defined; "posession" isn't (but it can be inferred).

Second, the case play I cited earlier clearly says that if the arrow is pointing to B, then shoot the FTs with no one on the lane, and give the ball to B, under the AP procedure. If the arrow is pointing to A, shoot the FTs with players on the lane, and resume from there -- the AP isn't involved.

b) and c) are clearly answered in 2.10.1A -- c) is "change of posession"; b) isn't.

Based on that, I'd say a) and d) aren't; e) is. It would also be change of posession if A caused the ball to go OOB.

I see what you are saying
I am in the middle of four things missed it.
Was outside my primary!

I agree with you, even though the NCAA rulebook doesn't have case plays that parallel the Fed rulebook. (Girls here in NY use NCAA rules, with some modifications.) However, it would be nice if there were a formal definition of possession in the rulebook. I like Cameron's summary---maybe that should be the official language that's adopted!

I remembered that we discussed this about a year ago and thought that Bob Jenkins provided an elegant definition of that term. So I went and used the search engine and look what popped up! :)

http://forum.officiating.com/showthr...+of+possession