Correctable Error

[johnnyrao]

Here is a "potentially weird" situation that almost happened to me last night. It was close game and the ball went out of bounds right by the table. The assistant coach of team A jumped up and called "time out". I did not say anything because it was the assistant, not the head coach. The Team A scorekeeper (visiting team) yelled to the bench that they were out of time outs. We played on with no problem. At the next stoppage of time the official scorekeepr told me that Team A still had one TO left. This got me thinking. If the head coach had called the TO and we thought it was their last and assessed a T (I know, this is an obvious error but sometimes I make some), and then after we shot the free throws the official scorer noticed the error and told us about it, would this be correctable under "awarding aunmerited free throw". Also, how would you re-start the play, at the point of interruption?

[rainmaker]

This error doesn't fall into the category of "awarding an unmerited free throw." It falls into the category of a "bad call". Assessing a technical foul is a "call" and that can't be corrected. The free throws were merited based on the fact that the technical was assessed.

And I suppose that if the coach was the one who requested the correction, then you have to charge him a TO, and then assess him a T since he doesn't have any TO's left.

And you'll have to toss him when he screams about that one.

And you'll never work a tournament game in your life.

[IREFU2]

Nope, not in the correctable error guidelines:
SECTION 10 CORRECTABLE ERRORS
ART. 1 . . . Officials may correct an error if a rule is inadvertently set aside and results in:
a. Failure to award a merited free throw.
b. Awarding an unmerited free throw.
c. Permitting a wrong player to attempt a free throw.
d. Attempting a free throw at the wrong basket.
e. Erroneously counting or canceling a score.

[Nevadaref]

My vote is that this is a correctable error.

BTW what is with all of these threads about time-out tracking problems with the table on this forum lately?

And is anyone out there becoming convinced that the officials should mentally keep the time-outs and not leave this up to the table?

[Gimlet25id]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

My vote is that this is a correctable error.

BTW what is with all of these threads about time-out tracking problems with the table on this forum lately?

And is anyone out there becoming convinced that the officials should mentally keep the time-outs and not leave this up to the table?

Why wouldn't this fall under awarding. "unmerited free throw?" It would be no different if the table tells you that the foul was the 7th when in fact it was the 6th.

I'm going correctable on this and canceling activity that happened prior to the recognition of an error. That would include the "T".

I'm sure this wouldn't happen this way. The official book already told the Op that the team had 1 TO left. If the official were to assess a T, the book would speak up as tot he discrepancy. That would cause the official to research the info to see where the discrepancy happened. However if one book has one thing and the other book has another and we were all as good as NEVA, our information would match up with one of the books. That would help validate the officials decision to make a change if warranted.

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

My vote is that this is a correctable error.

And your vote counts for.....

how much percentage of determining the correct way to hand this?

I imagine it would be much, much easier to look at this as a correctable error, but I'm not sure you can. What rule reference allows you to cancel an assessed foul?

Gimlet, you said:

Why wouldn't this fall under awarding. "unmerited free throw?" It would be no different if the table tells you that the foul was the 7th when in fact it was the 6th.

It IS different from the table telling you that the foul was the 7th when in fact it was the 6th. The difference is that you called a foul when you shouldn't have. That's not on the list of correctable errors.

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

And your vote counts for.....

how much percentage of determining the correct way to hand this?

I imagine it would be much, much easier to look at this as a correctable error, but I'm not sure you can. What rule reference allows you to cancel an assessed foul?

Gimlet, you said:

Why wouldn't this fall under awarding. "unmerited free throw?" It would be no different if the table tells you that the foul was the 7th when in fact it was the 6th.

It IS different from the table telling you that the foul was the 7th when in fact it was the 6th. The difference is that you called a foul when you shouldn't have. That's not on the list of correctable errors.

It's a book keeping errors. Book keeping errors can be corrected at any time with knowledge. Once you fix the book keeping error you can fix the umerited FT error within the proped time limits.

[Nevadaref]

Yea, Dan! I change my vote. I'm voting with Dan.

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by Dan_ref

It's a book keeping errors. Book keeping errors can be corrected at any time with knowledge. Once you fix the book keeping error you can fix the umerited FT error within the proped time limits.

Assessing a technical foul is a bookkeeping error? Wow!

[Gimlet25id]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

It IS different from the table telling you that the foul was the 7th when in fact it was the 6th. The difference is that you called a foul when you shouldn't have. That's not on the list of correctable errors.

The official book says they are out of time outs and we penelize with a "t" then they say no they did have one more. You mean you wouldn't correct this? There is no way I'm playing on without correcting this major of a mistake. I think that I can justify the correction in the book under the correctable error and book keeping mistake.

The point I was making that its a unmerited free throw which is correctable and the "T" is the activity that happened prior to the reconigtion of the error.

Dan Ref is correct in the fact that it is a book keeping error. Cancel the made FT's and give the ball back to the team that called a time out and play on.

[Mregor]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

BTW what is with all of these threads about time-out tracking problems with the table on this forum lately?

You beat me to it, but I'm with you on this. What happened with notifying the coach when they have used their last TO? This would help eliminate most of these problems.

Mregor

[Nevadaref]

JR,
Please specify whether or not you believe that the technical foul which has been assessed, and the penalty for which has been applied, can be rescinded as a consequence of fixing the bookkeeping mistake regarding the number of time-outs taken.

Secondly, please state how many time-outs this team now has remaining.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

JR,
Please specify whether or not you believe that the technical foul which has been assessed, and the penalty for which has been applied, can be rescinded as a consequence of fixing the bookkeeping mistake regarding the number of time-outs taken.

Secondly, please state how many time-outs this team now has remaining.

And if I don't want to?

I answered your first question already, Nevada. You can rescind the technical foul charged to the head coach, as per R2-11-11. You can also at the same time rescind the 2 FT's for the "T" if you catch that error before the first dead ball ended after the clock started following the second FT for the "T", as per R2-10-2 and 2-10-1(b).

The team will have 1 TO left after the bookkeeping correction.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

And if I don't want to?

I answered your first question already, Nevada. You can rescind the technical foul charged to the head coach, as per R2-11-11. You can also at the same time rescind the 2 FT's for the "T" if you catch that error before the first dead ball ended after the clock started following the second FT for the "T", as per R2-10-2 and 2-10-1(b).

The team will have 1 TO left after the bookkeeping correction.

Interesting...
I'm really not trying to be a wiseguy here, I asked for your opinion because I respect your expertise and you provided it. However, I'm still have a couple of sticking points. I would like your help in working through them.

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?

[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.