correctable error

[Stan]

During a fast paced and exciting district playoff game, team A scored and in the excitement team A began to take the ball out of bounds for the throw in. The officiating was great and the officials caught the error immediately. If they hadn't caught the error, and team A scored, would that be a correctable error? I don't think so but the thought has started some good conversation. Rule 2, Section 10, Article 5.

[BktBallRef]

No, it is not a correctable error based on 2-10. But it is a mistake that can be corrected. otherwise, a team could do this at anytime and we couldn't do anything about it..

10.1.8 SITUATION: Immediately following a goal or free throw by Team A, or following a time-out in this situation, A1 inbounds the ball to A2 and A2 subsequently throws the ball through A's basket.

Ruling: The following procedure has been adopted to handle this specific situation if it is recognized before the opponents gain control or before the next throw-in begins.
a. Charge Team A with a technical foul.
b. Cancel the field goal.
c. Cancel any common foul(s) committed and any nonflagrant foul against A2 in the act of shooting.
d. Put "consumed" time back on the clock.
Comment: If there is no doubt the throw-in was a result of confusion, especially after a time-out, the entire procedure would be followed except no technical foul would be charged. This procedure shall not be used in any other throw-in situation in which a mistake allows the wrong team to inbound the ball.

[rainmaker]

Tony -

This item in the casebook fascinates me. It goes against just about everything else in the both books, in terms of cancelling things and putting time back on the clock. Does anyone know why this one particular situattion is supposed to be treated this way? And how many refs know this exception well enough to get it right?

If they didn't cancel the field goal, but did everything else, and then B got the ball, and then the table or one ref realized it was wrong, would that be a correctible error?

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally posted by rainmaker
Tony -

This item in the casebook fascinates me. It goes against just about everything else in the both books, in terms of cancelling things and putting time back on the clock. Does anyone know why this one particular situattion is supposed to be treated this way? And how many refs know this exception well enough to get it right?

If they didn't cancel the field goal, but did everything else, and then B got the ball, and then the table or one ref realized it was wrong, would that be a correctible error?

I cannot help but write. "Yes, every official should know what is in the Casebook." In my humble opinion, you can cancel the field goal because this is not a correctable error.

[Mark Dexter]

Originally posted by rainmaker

If they didn't cancel the field goal, but did everything else, and then B got the ball, and then the table or one ref realized it was wrong, would that be a correctible error?

Yes, because we now have erroneously counting a score.

If the ref said wipe off the bucket but the book didn't, then it's correctable until the approval of the final score.

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by rainmaker
Tony -

This item in the casebook fascinates me. It goes against just about everything else in the both books, in terms of cancelling things and putting time back on the clock. Does anyone know why this one particular situattion is supposed to be treated this way? And how many refs know this exception well enough to get it right?

If they didn't cancel the field goal, but did everything else, and then B got the ball, and then the table or one ref realized it was wrong, would that be a correctible error?

If we didn't have this interpretation, we could not prevent a mad race for the ball after a every made basket. First team to the ball gets it!

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by BktBallRef

If we didn't have this interpretation, we could not prevent a mad race for the ball after a every made basket. First team to the ball gets it!

I understand why it's against the rules to pull this stunt. I just don't understand why we do all the rigamarole with the clock, and the fouls and so on. Why isn't the T enough? If the infraction happens when A steps out of bounds with the ball, or even when the ball is touched inbounds, then it would be dead and there wouldn't be a basket to cancel, and most of the fouls would be moot, since they would be during a dead ball.

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by rainmaker
I understand why it's against the rules to pull this stunt. I just don't understand why we do all the rigamarole with the clock, and the fouls and so on. Why isn't the T enough? If the infraction happens when A steps out of bounds with the ball, or even when the ball is touched inbounds, then it would be dead and there wouldn't be a basket to cancel, and most of the fouls would be moot, since they would be during a dead ball.

Imagine if this happened with just a few seconds left in the game and I think you'll come up with the answer.

[Richard Ogg]

I had this happen at a girls' Frosh game a couple of weeks ago. Only in our case after team B made a basket, both A1 and B1 walked OOB to prevent the ball from rolling away. (This made good sense in that gym.) A1 retrieved the ball, then handed it to B1 OOB. B1 looked confused, tossed it to B2 in bounds, who made a basket. I just blew it dead, told howling coach A it was not a T (after all, A1 gave her the ball!), and had A1 inbound it. I didn't worry about the ~1 second as it was early in the game and not worth the hassle given our inexperienced table.

[Dave Brost]

Just a thought on this situation. As stated in the Casebook, I think there is a difference between this play happening out of honest confusion, and that in which the one team is deceiving the other team. The honest mistake can be handled by the casebook scenario, with no T.
However, in the other case, would it not be possible to call a "delay of game" penalty for interfering with the ball after the made basket? This would eliminate any action that happens after the team tried to inbound the ball. If it is first time, go with the warning. Second time, you have the T. (Or at end of game trying to stop the clock, automatic T, with no warning required.) I think you could explain this a lot easier than going through all the other confusion.

[BktBallRef]

The case book addresses both situations.

"If there is no doubt the throw-in was a result of confusion, especially after a time-out, the entire procedure would be followed except no technical foul would be charged."

[Dave Brost]

BktBallRef-
I understand what the casebook is saying, and why. My questions is, isn't this a contradiction of the NFHS rules because you actually have a delay of game before anything else happens?

[Mark Dexter]

Originally posted by Dave Brost
BktBallRef-
I understand what the casebook is saying, and why. My questions is, isn't this a contradiction of the NFHS rules because you actually have a delay of game before anything else happens?

This is to be followed if you don't realize the delay-of-game situation for warning/technical.

As soon as the wrong team inbounds the ball, you can't charge the delay-of-game penalty.

[Mark Dexter]

Originally posted by rainmaker
I just don't understand why we do all the rigamarole with the clock, and the fouls and so on. Why isn't the T enough? If the infraction happens when A steps out of bounds with the ball, or even when the ball is touched inbounds, then it would be dead and there wouldn't be a basket to cancel, and most of the fouls would be moot, since they would be during a dead ball.

A puts up a basket to go up by three.
5 seconds remain on the clock.
At 3 seconds, A picks up the ball.
At 2 seconds, A inbounds the ball.
At 0 seconds, you have a horn and an "Oh, crap!" whistle from the covering offficial.
Team A gets a technical, but team B only gets two shots.
End of game (except, of course, for the T's you'll have to call on B's coach!)

[RookieDude]

Very good explanation Mark Dexter!

RD