AAHHEEMM!!! Excuse me a moment, folks, I'd like to return to the original sitch if you don't mind.

Looking at 2-10-6 makes me think that you would, in fact, not give the ball to A at the division line. But Tony is seldom wrong, and Rut nearly always gets the rules right, and I'm disagreeing with them both.

Please, Rut or Tony, explain.

Rainmaker
I think that the "there has been no change of team possession" rule comes into play here. It seems to me that the error was made but the T results in an effective change of team possession from being a free ball on a rebound (or going to B on made FTs) to a situation in which A gets the ball automatically, regardless of FT result. The 2-10-6 rule comes into play if you have A getting an OOB play, somehow having a stoppage with A still in possession, then realizing that A should have had FTs. You give the FTs in this situation as normal. If A had gained possession then travelled, they would get FTs then B would get ball. I do not think that 2-10-6 is intended to address this specific situation.

Juulie,the situation was a false double foul,with the T coming last.The correction made under 2-10 was only to the penalty of one of the fouls.It did not change the order in which they happened.It was too late to shoot the penalties in the proper order,but not too late to administer the merited FT's for the 1st foul.This correction doesn't affect the rest of the false double foul sitch-i.e.A gets the ball OOB because the fouls are considered to have been administered in the order they happened,and the T was the last foul called.Does make any more sense?Rut and TH had the right call.