Free throw admin screw up........
 

Here's the situation...Visiting team make a layup and gets fouled setting up a potential 3 point play. Home team calls Timeout. My parter and I identify the shooter so we can have the correct one coming out of TO. Partner is underneath administering FT attempt. I step in and give him a "1 finger sign" to make sure he knows it's one shot. After I do this. The PG for the Home team asks me a question. I then see my partner standing right beside a player on the lane signifying to me that he probably thinks it's 2 shots. The kid is getting ready to shoot so I don't want to interfere with his shot. I just pray he makes it. Well,he misses it and one of his players picks it up and tries to put it back in. I blow the whistle since I know it is one shot.My partner,the veteran above me,says we have an inadvertent whistle so we go to the arrow. He does it half heartedly so he wasn't too sure of himself. Was that the right thing to do?The arrow was in the visiting teams favor which obviously didn't sit well with the home crowd.

I'm a bit confused - did your partner tell them it was 1 shot or 2? Did the players play like it was 2, or just 1? Or did some play and some not?

It's not an IW, it's a correctable error.
It's only an IW if all the players attempted to get the rebound, in which case your partner was wrong to go with the arrow. IW goes to the team in control, if there is one.
If it's correctable error, you'd go to the arrow (assuming only a couple of players were attempting to rebound.)

He told the players it was 2 when he should have said 1.

How many of them played the rebound?

OFFICIALS PROVIDE ERRONEOUS INFORMATION
8.6.1 SITUATION: A1 is about to attempt the first of a one-and-one free-throw situation. The administering official steps in and erroneously informs players that two shots will be taken. A1's first attempt is unsuccessful. The missed shot is rebounded by: (a) B1, with all other players motionless in anticipation of another throw; (b) A2, with all other players motionless in anticipation of another throw; or (c) B2, with several players from both teams attempting to secure the rebound. The officials recognize their error at this point. RULING: In (a) and (b), the official's error clearly put one team at a disadvantage (players stood motionless and didn't attempt to rebound). Play should be whistled dead immediately and resumed using the alternating-possession procedure. In (c), both teams made an attempt to rebound despite the official's error and had an equal opportunity to gain possession of the rebound. Play should continue.

Sigh.....they never learn. :(

Apparently, my work here isn't done.

How is this a correctable error?

I believe Snaqwell was in a rush. Indianaref cited the case play

Right, it's a fixable mistake, but not a correctable error.

Would this fall under 2-10-1 b. Awarding an unmerited free throw? My reading of that has always been that it is corrected after the unmerited free throw has been shot, but can we also apply it if the error is corrected prior to the free throw being shot?

An unmerited free throw wasn't awarded, it was announced.

I consider it a CE, as jdw points out, for awarding an unmerited free throw. Even though the shot was not actually taken, that's in essence what happened. What other rule are you going to use? If you use IW, then you have to give the ball to the kid who catches it.

I could be wrong here, but I don't think this is a correctable error. The FT wasn't awarded. Did you look at the citation IndianaRef gave? Looks applicable to me.

You have to be careful calling it a CE though because then are you going to apply the CE rues for correcting it? What if you don't get it right away, but during the next dead ball you think "you know what, the other kids didn't really go for that rebound", are you going to go back and fix it then and cancel all activity, etc, etc??? Just think of it as a unique case with a unique provision for fixing it.....CE's are specific situations with specific methods for correcting.....

You don't do that when you correct a CE, so no he won't.

Geez, I was trying to make a point about why you shouldn't consider it a CE, I wasn't trying to quote 2-10 for crying out loud....and yeah you would cancel the free throw and activity in 2-10-4 - other than unsporting, flagrant, intentional or technical fouls....if you want to get technical...sheesh...

What activity am I going to cancel? I would do it by CE rule, yes. Otherwise, you can't fix it.
If you call this an IW, then you have to give the ball to the player who has it.

None in this case since they had an immediate whistle, all I am saying is that if you start shoehorning situations into rules where they don't fit you can get yourself twisted up...maybe not this time, but just as a habit..why do you have to "call it" anything, why not just administer it per the casebook play 8.6.1 that was quoted earlier? There are five specific CE situatuions, this is not one of them - no "error" had even been committed, if it was one shot, the shooter only shot one shot, where is the error? If anyone asks you what happened say that the official gave errouneous information and we handled according to the rules specific to that situation....and don't forget 2-3, the referee shall make decisions on any points not specifically covered in the rules...

I believe the previous caseplay regarding the official giving erroneous information is exactly what the OP is. It definitely can't be a CE. The free thrower was allowed 1 free throw which he got. He didn't take an unmerited free throw, so there is no correctable error here, by rule. Now there was an error when the lead announced 2 free throws when only 1 was allowed. We correct that error by immediately killing the play and going to the a/p arrow, unless everybody or the mostly everybody continued to play, then we we disregard the erroneous information. If after everyone plays on or attempts to play on, then a whistle comes in, that is about the only time I would give the ball back to whoever had possession at the time of the whistle.

Let's change this play slightly. Everything is the same except the officials don't blow the whistle until either: 1. A2's putback attempt is in the air, or 2. B1 grabs the rebound and heads down the other way towards an uncontested layup.

The administering official awarded the free throw when he announced "two shots." Whether or not the free throw had been attempted yet doesn't change that.

Finally, what if no one rebounded, and the trail official didn't notice anything wrong until the lead gave the ball back to the shooter for his second attempt. Trail kills the play prior to the shot. This fits the correctable error, and needs to be corrected accordingly. It sure isn't an inadvertant whistle.

In the OP, the younger official chose not to blow his whistle after the shooter got the ball, since he didn't want to disturb the shooter.

That's the primary officiating error: it led to more trouble later. "Tweet! Pass the ball back, we're shooting just one here, Joe!"

If you're that worried about the fragile shooter, you can boost his or her ego by adding, "the shot was good!"

The point here is if one team is put at a disadvantage go to the arrow. If both teams makes an effort for the missed attempt play on as normal.

Snaq, I still can't see how this is a correctable error since the whistle was blown prior to the free throw being attempted. Yes the ball was at the disposal of the free throw shooter, but the unmerited attempt wasn't taken.

If no one rebounded, and the first attempt was made, and the trail kills the play after the 2nd attempt is at the disposal, we are giving the ball back to Team B, assuming Team A was attempting the free throws. If the first attempt was unsuccessful, and the trail kills the ball after the ball is at the disposal for the 2nd (unmerited) attempt, then we are going to the AP arrow. It's an ugly, screwy situation, but that's the price we pay when we have a failure to communicate within our team. It's one big magnified situation in that gym that shows the officials screwed up.

I totally agree. I'm blowing my whistle as soon as I see/hear my partner give the wrong information. If the shooter or coach gets pissed, who cares.

Disagree, we can debate the meaning of "awarded", but I don't think you have been "awarded" a free throw attempt until you actually have the attempt - until the second attempt is at the disposal of the free thrower.

In your first two instances, I would kill it and apply this casebook play. Again, think 2-3 and use some judgement - the casebook play even uses the term "disadvantage", that is what you have to consider in this case...especially in trying to determine how long you will let play continue and still stop it to fix this...not sure if I can give you a good answer, but if B rebounded and started to dribble down the floor and nobody else had attempted to get the rebound I have to believe that I would realize that something was wrong before he/she shot an uncontested layup at the other end...

In your last example, yes you would have a CE here, but this is not the situatution presented in the original post since nobody made an attempt at the rebound. Since there is no obviouse POE in this case (free throw was missed), I would say we go to the arrow here.

Bottom line is there is a specific case dedicated to this exact play and nowhere does it cite 2-10. If this was a CE situatuion, I believe it would be addressed within the confines of 2-10, or at least the casebook play would cite 2-10.

Agree with all except that if nobody attempts to rebound the first miss and the ball is given back to the thrower, I would say you have "awarded" an unmerited free throw when you put the ball at the thrower's disposal...either way in that case whether you call it a CE or not you are going to the AP arrow...not sure where you find the definition of "awarded"....it is just such a specific goofy situatuion that I think it was excluded from teh CE provision intentionally to avoid (further!) confusion...

Of course you would, because that's the remedy from CE. He hasn't shot yet, though. So you're saying it's "awarded" when it's at the shooter's disposal? Why?
By telling them there will be two shots, the official has instructed the players not to rebound. This is, in effect, awarding a 2nd shot. The case play may not reference 2-10, but it sure uses the same method of correction.

That said, it doesn't matter too much, since the resolution doesn't change whether you refer to 2-10 or just the case play. The CE resolution fits no matter when you catch this.

Either way, it is not an IW; otherwise you have to give the ball to whomever caught it.



I'm assuming you're issue is that with CE the window for correction is longer. Right? IOW, if B1 grabs the ball that no one else really attempted to rebound and flings it down to B3 streaking for the basket, and you blow your whistle just after B3 throws down an earth-shattering dunk, it's too late?

Since you're never going to make this mistake, let's put this play in a JV game with a couple of relatively inexperienced refs. What do you propose they do?

Disregard. I just looked over my brilliantly-concocted situation and realized that by CE rules, you'd have to count the basket and go with POE. A's ball for an end-line throwin. IOW, no affect.

Calling it CE or not really has no effect on this play.

I don't even know that the window for correction is even technically "longer" for a CE, it is just that the window is "defined" for a CE, whereas for this case it is not, this situation is much more open to judgement than a CE is. I just don't want an inexperienced official to read this and say "oh yeah this is a correctable error", then they start calling everything a correctable error when that may not be the case. If a new official can just understand the prescribed situations that fall under the CE provision and how to remedy them, they will be in great shape - confusing the terminology in this case just makes it harder, that is why I am picking at this...

As far as relatively inexperienced refs in a JV game, I would propose that they know this case play!:) Otherwise, more often than not they will probably blow the whistle and go to the AP arrow which turns out to be correct in this case....whether or not they know why they did it might be another question:)

This is such an isolated situation. Calling this a CE isn't going to have any affect on any other situation. BTW, I added a correction to my previous post.

I'm not just throwing the term out there haphazardly, and I didnt' use it carelessly.

It's an error, and it's correctable, but it's not a correctable error.

Similar to giving the ball to the wrong team for a throw-in and catching it before the throw-in pass is touched.

If you need to call it something, call it "Fixable Upon Correct Knowledge of the Error for Disregarding the Usual Procedure."

(Apologies to those who don't cuss)

Sorry Snaq...this is NOT a correctable error. It doesn't become a correctable error until the FT shooter actually completes the FT (made or missed). Sure, there has been an error...but not a "correctable error".

It's not an inadvertant whistle either. It's a dead ball the moment it comes off the rim and players don't try to rebound it due to the misinformation.

B3 just dunked a dead ball...the ball is dead on the FT miss if players do not attempt to rebound the ball based on misinformation....even if the ref is slow in blowing the whistle.

I don't see how the ball is dead. There's no violation or foul to cause the ball to become dead. The whistle is what makes the ball dead.

I do find it interesting that 2-3 (the God rule) is invoked by the case play, rather than 2-10.

And what does that tell you?

The rational me, or the obnoxious me?
Seriously, it tells me the rules committee doesn't consider this 2nd free throw to be awarded yet.

That said, my initial thought, that it is not an IW, stands.

By calling it an IW, the OP's partner put the blame on the OP (possibly inadvertently, ironically enough) rather than on himself.

To me, this is treated and fixed like a CE; and I see no ramifications for thinking of it as such; even if it really isn't.

Bob I'm not sure about correcting the above situation highlighted in your post. The throw-in has started once the ball is at the disposal, does the throw-in have to end before we lose the chance to correct this? I can't find this in the case or rule book. I do see in case play 7.5.2 Sit A where the throw in is by the wrong team, but it's not very clear if the throw-in must be completed before we cannot correct this. In the caseplay, the throw in was completed and no correction is allowed. I guess my question is, does the throw-in have to end. In your scenario the throw in started and the ball could be passed onto the playing court, but not yet been touched. I'm not sure if I'm going to correct that, even though it is the right thing to do. Any thoughts or additional references are appreciated.

See case book play 6.4.1SitD.

Thanks JR.

It's dead becasue it was a FT that was to be followed by another FT...per the announcement of the official...even if it was an erroneous announcement. The whistle only announces to everyone that the ball was already dead.