How could it be <b>reasonable</b> when it's a <b>different</b> situation?

Exactly what I would have done if I had done it correctly

I agree with Jurassic. Especially since the administering ref announced 1-and-1. I think it has to be called a correctable error. and the ball gets put back into play at the POI.

Now.

What if T realizes as the shot goes up that L announced incorrectly? Blows whistle before the ball shanks off the rim? NOW it's still early enough that the correctable error rule doesn't apply, I think.

I'm sorry guys I don't see a problem with the way this was handled. Even though the admin. official announced 1 & 1 the calling official knew it was 2 shots. I'm thinking the best thing to do is blow your whistle and just simply announce 1 more shot with the box filled. This doesn't seem any different then when a official announces 2 shots form the get go and the low blocks forget that it is 2 shots and immediately go in for a rebound. We would just simply remind them of the fact we are shooting 2.

Now if the calling official and the admin. official both said 1 & 1 when it should've been 2 & B rebounds with no whistle and play continues with time coming off the clock then I can see invoking Rule 2-10. In the case the calling official said he hit his whistle immediately. Why not go ahead and line them up and give the other shot?

I keep looking at the case book as I write this post. It sounds like either would work. I guess it all depends when the calling official hit his whistle to stop play. I think whether I go correctable or not would be if time ran off the clock. If no time runs off and my whistle or the whistle is right before or either right @ the rebound being controlled would dictate the ruling. It seems easiest, if you can get by with it, to line them back up and shoot the other throw.

Agreed. The case book play which dealt with the opposite of this situation points out that action was necessary because the misinformation put someone at a disadvantage. In this case that is not true. Shoot the other free throw and forget it.

I'm leaning towards the correctable error situation now. Otherwise, B is cheated out of a rebound they earned.

There was no rebound to get. Ball was dead, and played as dead by the lead official.

1) According to the original post, the official blew his whistle <b>after</b> B1 had rebounded the missed FT.

2) Why would time running off the clock be a criteria that is needed to have a correctable error on this play?:confused: The clock starting isn't a rules requirement to have any correctable error occur afaik. It's just one of the parameters set up to define the time-limits that correctable errors are governed by.

And what <b>rule</b> made the ball dead before the official blew his whistle?

Why didn't the calling official come in immediately to correct the lead official on the number of free throws?

Did both teams go after the rebound?

I agree that this meets the criteria for a correctable error.

Suppose that the teams were lined back up to shoot the second and A1 doinks it off the rim and A3 rebounds and gets a put back for two points.

Since B got the rebound on the first throw I think you clear the lane and continue from the POI.

<b>Not</b> giving A1 his second merited FT <b>wasn't</b> putting him at a disadvantage? :rolleyes:

The correctable error in this case is failure to award a merited free throw, right? The thing is, we did not fail to award it. We are going to do so right now, immediately following the first. I see immediately as the key to the whole thing, and this was the word the original poster used to describe when he blew the whistle.

The OP said he hit his whistle immediatley. If time didn't run off then you could justify lining the players up because the whistle makes the ball dead and you was hitting the whistle as he was controlling the rebound. In fact a argument could be made that the ball was dead already by Rule 6-7 art.2a when the calling official verbalized 2 shots, especially if the shooter or any other player from the shooting team herd the calling official say 2 shots.

In the play mentioned on the OP one official says 2 shots and the other says 1 & 1. What if the shooting team knew it was 2 shots and didn't attempt to rebound. Would they be put @ a disadvantage if we invoke 2-10 and go POI with B keeping the ball when A didn't have a chance to rebound. I'm not saying you couldn't go correctable. My point is to make sure we give neither team a advantage. So if no time runs off I think it would help justify the ball was dead, line them up and shoot the second.

Trying to think out loud which way would be the best for the aforementioned game

Like I said you could go either way. I would just prefer to kill right away and line them up if I can. I would think that would be a easier sell then to try and explain the correctable error rule to the offended coach.

What if the shooting team is still down 2 points with under a few seconds left and their only hope is to rebound a missed free throw. If we invoke 2-10, let the A team shoot 1 more shot with the box cleared, they have no chance to get the rebound, assuming of course they knew it was 2 shots.

Just seem that it would fit the game better to line them back up and play on...if you can get by with it.

I suppose this situation could have been prevented if the Trail (the calling official) would have confirmed how many shots before the lead bounced the ball to the shooter. This is something I always do. If I'm the lead, I double check with the trail. If I'm the trail, I hold up how many shots we have so when the lead looks over s/he can see and confirm.

And what rule(s) are you going to cite to the offended coach rather than citing the correctable error rule? Ones that aren't applicable to the actual circumstances?

If you can logically explain a call citing existing rules, imo you never have to "sell" anything to anybody. The call sells itself.

Of course, the coach probably will not believe you anyway because he doesn't <b>want</b> to believe you.:)