Correctable Error

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Interesting...


1. While I agree that if the book was in error about the number of time-outs that the technical foul SHOULD be rescinded, I'm not convinced that 2-11-11 is the proper rules citation to allow that. The situation posed in this thread challenges my thinking about booking keeping as I have always considered that to be a record of the game. It records the score, the fouls that are charged, the time-outs, and in some cases the substitutions. So correcting a mistake in the book is simply about erasing a mark or number and/or putting one in another place. Fouls can clearly be changed from one player to another or moved from one team to the other or even erased entirely if they never took place, but can a technical foul which was called, reported, and the penalty assessed be wiped away as if it never happened solely on the basis of 2-11-11? I think that something stronger is needed to back that. Maybe even 2-3. Although, I hate to go there.

2. If you do make the T disappear, why would the team still have one time-out left? Wouldn't they be at zero now, since they got their five time-outs and didn't suffer a technical foul?

3. If it is too late to correct the awarding of the FTs and they must stand, do you give the team one time-out according to Dan's rationale that they are entitled to five which aren't penalized? They have already paid for a sixth with a T, so they still have one unpenalized time-out remaining. Is that what you would do?

Why use R2-3 when the language in R2-11-11 covers it?--"A bookkeeping mistake may be corrected at any time until the referee approves the final score". When you correct the bookkeeping mistake, you create a correctable error at the same time- i.e. R2-10-1(b)- "Awarding an unmerited free throw". That correctable error can only be corrected using the criteria contained in R2-10-2--"Such error must be recognized by an official no later than during the first dead ball after the clock has properly started". Looks to me like the existing rules cover this situation pretty well.

2) Good point. I didn't read the original situation close enough.The team used their supposed sixth TO before the penalties for that TO were administered. The book would now show 6 charged TO's. After correction of the bookkeeping error, it should show 5 actual TO's taken. Iow, they don't get to use another one.

3) See #2.

[just another ref]

If we can rescind the technical, why could we not rescind the free throws shot because of the technical? The technical was not a bookkeeping error, it was caused by a bookkeeping error.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by just another ref

If we can rescind the technical, why could we not rescind the free throws shot because of the technical?

There's time restraints attached to the rescinding of the free throws for the "T", as per Rule 2-10-2.

Can you cite anything that says different?

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

There's time restraints attached to the rescinding of the free throws for the "T", as per Rule 2-10-2.

Can you cite anything that says different?

You haven't cited anything that says you can rescind a technical foul, but I am going along with the way you did it. But logically, if there was no technical foul, there were no free throws.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Why use R2-3 when the language in R2-11-11 covers it?--"A bookkeeping mistake may be corrected at any time until the referee approves the final score". When you correct the bookkeeping mistake, you create a correctable error at the same time- i.e. R2-10-1(b)- "Awarding an unmerited free throw". That correctable error can only be corrected using the criteria contained in R2-10-2--"Such error must be recognized by an official no later than during the first dead ball after the clock has properly started". Looks to me like the existing rules cover this situation pretty well.

I follow all of that, but there seems to me to be one intermediate step that is logically needed in there and it is this step that I find difficult.

It seems to me that when you correct the bookkeeping mistake, specifically you correct the number of time-outs charged to Team A, you merely make the technical foul unwarranted, you don't necessarily make the FTs that resulted from that technical foul unmerited. Unless you can point to a specific rule that allows you to rescind the charged technical foul, then the 2FTs that were awarded because of it remain merited.

So JR what is the specific rules book language that states that you can rescind this technical foul? That is what I am seeking. Doing that would make the 2FTs unmerited and create a correctable error situation. It seems to me that unless you are able to do that there is no correctable error.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

So JR what is the specific rules book language that states that you can rescind this technical foul?

Respectfully,
Rule 2FREAKING-11FREAKING-FREAKING11

The technical foul is a bookkkeping error that was made as a result of the extra TO bookkeeping error.You have something in the rule book that you can use to straighten out the play. Use it. You don't have any rules language afaik that will allow you to do anything else. And after you do straighten that part of the screw-up out, unfortunately you also do have language governing the unmerited FT's. You have to use that language too.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

The technical foul is a bookkkeping error.......

I fail to see how you can refer to the technical itself as a bookkeeping error.
The ref called it, the scorer wrote it down.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by just another ref

I fail to see how you can refer to the technical itself as a bookkeeping error.
The ref called it, the scorer wrote it down.

While I am also looking for something more concrete here is the argument that I would currently make in favor of that. (I'm not even convinced that I buy this argument myself.)

Tracking how many time-outs a team has taken during a game is clearly a bookkeeping matter.
Rule 10-1-7 tells us that requesting an excess time-out is a team technical foul. The penalty for any article in section 1 is specified as 2FTs plus the ball for a div line throw-in.
When it was discovered that the time-out WAS excessive, the proper penalty was assessed. However, logically when it was later discovered that the time-out was in fact NOT an excess time-out the penalty must go away.
So the BOOKKEEPING requires for either there to be a penalty or to not be a penalty. So if the bookkeeping was in error then the penalty was also in error. Therefore, the penalty is part of the bookkeeping mistake.

For the counter to this argument see my post numbered 38 in this thread.