Erroneous info
 

Here's the sitch:

B1 commits a common foul on A1 which is the teams 7th, partner (rookie official) administers the FTs.
A5 rebounds the missed 1st shot & scores a lay-up, nobody else moves. Team B is granted a timeout immediately.
My partner says to me I accidently told them 2 shots.
I remember reading a similar situation in the case book 8.6.1 to be exact. The only difference is my sitch involves a scored basket. I tell him no worries, we can correct it.

What we did was cancel the basket & gave the ball to Team B for a spot throw-in. After re-reading the case book this morning, I noticed that I told the young official wrong because we should've went to the AP arrow.

Is wiping off the basket by A5 correct?

I totally blame myself for:
1. not being cognizant that he said 2 when it was 1 & 1... I could've eliminated the error & my misapplication of the rule would've never occured had I been on my Ps & Qs :mad:

2. not knowing the rules (partially proficient doesn't count) :mad:

Let me know if everything else we did was correct prior to our failure of going to the AP arrow. I'd like to shoot my partner an email & clear things up for his future reference. Thanks!

You failed to quickly blow the whistle and make the ball dead BEFORE the rebounder scored a basket. (Note the language of the case book play--"whistled dead immediately".) Since the basket was scored with a live ball, you cannot cancel it. You have no rules support to do so. You tried to do the right thing once you realized that you and your partner had made a mistake in the FT administration, but unfortunately, you committed another mistake in trying to fix the first one.

You needed to accept that a mistake occurred and move on.

I partially agree
 

Nevada, I agree the mistakes compounded each other to a point. But in the end aside from the CE they got it right. I agree that they can't cancel the score, since the POI is after the score, B should get the ball, but not with a spot throw in.

Ok, since I didn't know that he provided erroneous info until after the basket was made, nothing can done to fix it except dont f&%# it up to begin with. Is that correct?

You need to watch your partner signal prior to the FT. You already admitted that you goofed by not doing so. Unfortunate, but not something that you should be crucified over.

I guess that you could have realized that something was wrong when only one player went after the rebound and sounded the whistle at that time. The action could have clued you in that your partner did something incorrect. Just a thought.

I'm confused how you came up with giving the ball to Team B and taking the basket away from Team A, since it was A5 who got the rebound. :confused: You just gave Team B a free rebound without making them pay for it in any way, such as with the AP arrow.

I could understand an official saying that the ball became dead prior to the goal due to the mistake and thus no basket, but still Team A retains possession when the game resumes since that team did get the rebound. It wouldn't be truly correct, but it would be a reasonable ruling for an official who didin't know the case play with great precision.

I gotcha... I guess it's better to learn that lesson now than in a more critical environment later.
Thanks!!!

That's what summer ball is for, right?

I don't understand this one, Nevada. How can this be the right move? Particularly, if you're going to negate the shot (the "right" thing to do, even though it's not the "correct" thing), how do you give the ball to A without going to the arrow? It doesn't make sense.

I guess so. But I just hate making simple mistakes. Since I learned from it & if I don't make the same mistake again... it's not such a bad thing.

I learned 3 things: How to properly handle that situation. How to eliminate or slim down the chances of it occuring. And admitting unnoticed errors to partners increases your credibility.

Adam,
All that I was saying there is that if an official isn't aware of the precise way to handle the situation as detailed in the case book, I could certainly see an official ruling the ball dead just after the rebound, thus negating the goal, and then going to the POI to resume the game. That would give the ball to Team A as they had team control at the time. Not saying that it is the correct NFHS ruling, but I do think that it makes some sense.

Excellent. I hope that you are a better official today than you were yesterday. That is something for which all of us should be constantly striving.

I get it. You see this as one (not necessarily the only) way to understandably screw this up. :)

Summer ball?!?!? It's supposed to snow here tomorrow. :mad:

Well, I work fairly near Ch1town, and it was snowing as I arrived at work this morning. Snow's gone now, though.

Now Wait A Min.....
 

I said just this about this sitch about 1 month ago and someone told me I was wrong to count the basket. That it was correctable and the basket is to be removed. I wish I could find that thread....

Why can't the guy who gave the bad info wave the basket off and say the ball was dead by rule 6-7-2-a?

As Nevada said, the official(s) should have blown their whistle immediately. Rule 6-7-2a is not applicable. This was a 1 and 1. Free throw was not to be followed by another free throw (missed first free throw) or followed by a throw-in.
You can only wipe off the basket as in R 2-10-4 . . . If the error is a free throw by the wrong player or at the wrong basket, or the awarding of an unmerited free throw, the free throw and the activity during it, other than unsporting, flagrant, intentional or technical fouls, shall be canceled... in the appropriate time frame.
In Ch1 case the correct shooter was at the line.

If the administering official announces 2 shots, then, even if it's wrong, the free throw is to be followed by another free throw. Therefore, when it is apparent that the first free throw is no good, the ball is dead.

Sorry, but that is simply not true.

If a player is fouled while attempting an unsuccessful lay-up, do think that he is entitled to three FTs if the administering official erroneously announces, "Three shots"?

The number of FTs does not change based upon what an official says, they are properly determined by game action.

The correctable error here would be awarding the 2nd shot. Yes, bad info can cause problems, and the whistle should have blown. But there's no correctable error here to allow you to discount the shot.
And even if there was a "correctable error," you still can't discount any activity that occurred prior to discovery.

I see the error as awarding 2 shots instead of 1 & 1. Both shots were awarded by the announcement, even though the second one is yet to be shot.
You mean to tell me that if the lead official steps in and starts to pick up the ball after the first shot and A1 takes it out of his hand and scores, you would count the basket since there was no whistle?

A shot is not awarded until it is taken. Still I am partial to the philosophy that the ball is dead on the miss. The players are not responsible for bookkeeping and knowing whether it should be 1+1 or 2. They go by what the ref/table says. If the ref says 2 and most/all players play as it were two, the ball is dead. The player who shot the ball shot a dead ball.... no basket.

I agree with you, and wish the NFHS would issue a case play to this affect. As it stands, the rules don't support that action, though.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Camron Rust
A shot is not awarded until it is taken. Still I am partial to the philosophy that the ball is dead on the miss. The players are not responsible for bookkeeping and knowing whether it should be 1+1 or 2. They go by what the ref/table says. If the ref says 2 and most/all players play as it were two, the ball is dead. The player who shot the ball shot a dead ball.... no basket.





So, did you wave off the basket or not?

This comes down to what the words mean in NFHS basketball jargon.

In NFHS terms "awarding" a FT means actually allowing the player to attempt it. The verbal statement of how many FTs will be shot does not constitute "awarding" the FT.

Unless the official was touching OOB when he touched the ball, the ball contacting the official is no reason to declare it dead.

No, but the verbal statement does mean that "another free throw is to follow"
which means the ball is dead after the miss.

Nope, terminology again.
"Another free throw is to follow" which I have to presume is language that you are paraphrasing from 6-7-2, means that due to the game action another FT attempt actually will occur after the current one is completed. It does not mean that an official mistakenly stated such.

You really need to stop putting your own personal meaning into these phrases and go with what the NFHS intends them to mean. You can deduce that from the play rulings and interpretations that the NFHS has issued in the past. Doing so will greatly help both your understanding and adminstration of the game.

Just because an official says something, doesn't make it so.

Here's a counterexample to your statement: An official tells a coach that he has one time-out remaining, but the official is mistaken and that team really doesn't have any left. When the coach requests and is granted a time-out, the NFHS rules dictate that this action be penalized with a technical foul.

So the NFHS intends for team A to get a free basket because of the official's mistake? I think your are putting too much emphasis on the phrase "whistled dead immediately."

If we go the route you suggest, every player should try to rebound every FT and shoot it in hopes of getting a free shot...even if everyone says it should be two...just in case an error is found.

The NFHS does state that they do not intend one team to get an advantage not intended by the rules.

Camron,
You've already stated that you know what the NFHS ruling is on such a situation, but you wish that they would alter it. While the current ruling does have some downside, I believe that neither of us has any trouble understanding it and properly enforcing it. Let's not twist the topic into the realm of the theoretical and the hypothetical. Let's focus on how to correctly handle it under the current rule.
Talking about anything else in this thread could well serve to further confuse officials such as JAR.

BTW I would argue that an unsporting technical foul would be appropriate for a player who did as you suggest. That action is clearly not within the spirit of fair play.

True, but if an official says two shots, we shoot two shots, unless an official says otherwise afterward.

Unless the players know better and rebound the miss from the front end of the 1 and 1. Then we just play on.

Right and that happens to be part c of the case book play.

Players yes.....one player no

page 10: THE INTENT AND PURPOSE OF THE RULES
 

"..........it is important to know the intent and purpose of a rule so that it may be intelligently applied in each play situation. A player or team should not be permitted an advantage which is not intended by a rule."


Is a player scoring a basket while his opponents stand and watch because of bad information given by an official an advantage? Surely we all agree that it is.

Is there any rule which intends for this to happen? Surely we all agree that there is not.


Sometimes mistakes happen which are compounded by quirks in the wording of the rules. These can result in things which do not seem fair and there may be no way out. In this case there is an easy, obvious way out:

The ball was dead after the miss.

The end

Once again you seem to have a misunderstanding of something that the NFHS has written. The intent and purpose passage is directed at a player or team purposely trying to take advantage of a written rule in some way that it is not intended to be applied. It has nothing to do with a team benefitting when an official misses a call or misapplies a rule. You seem to have confused the two.

In this case did the player who scored the goal break any rule to gain this advantage? Nope, an official made a mistake.

If an official hands the ball to the wrong team for a throw-in and the throw-in is completed before anyone realizes that something has been administered incorrectly, what is the proper course of action?
Should the official stop play, erase the throw-in and award the ball to the proper team? No, the NFHS says that it is too late to correct the mistake.

What if the team quickly scores a goal due to the official's mistake of handing the ball to the wrong team? That seems to be rather analogous to the situation under discussion. Did this team gain an unfair advantage? Yep, but the goal stands anyway because that's the way the rules work.

sez who?

What if the administrating official on a throw in tells the player he can run the end line when in fact it is a spot throw in. After putting the ball at the throwers disposal, he runs the end line, your partner from 20 ft away calls the violation. What now? I say you call the violation. I also think you count the bucket in the OP.

The difference is that "all players" particiapte in the throw-in -- so this example is more like part (c) of the case play.

If an official says "2 shots", then s/he is preparing for two shots and it's going to take a second or two to realize why only one person attempted to rebound the basketball. During that time, I think the whistle can be sounded and we can go to the arrow -- even if the ball has passed through the basket.

No, I don't know exactly where the "line" is between correcting the error (and I don't mean to imply 2-10 with that phrase) and letting it go. Certainly, once the subsequent throw-in is complete it's too late. IMO, before the subsequent throw-in has started, it's not too late. During the subsequent throw-in???? (probably too late -- again, especially if all players are actively participating in the play).

And, I'll argue that this is the "spirit and intent" of the rule, and not what others have said in this thread.

I with you bob....I was thinking last night of the same idea but for some reason couldn't come up with words I liked ( and didn't post ).

In my game, I'm considering the ball dead on the miss of the first shot after I annouce 2 shots if only 1 player plays the ball... It doesn't matter if it is my error or the tables.

Apparently my "confusion" is shared by Bob and Camron. Nothing like being in good company. :)

Along the same line, but a little different - during a timeout, an official tells a coach he has one remaining, but in fact, it is his last one. That coach subsequently requests and is granted a timeout. Is it a technical?

I would first admonish the official for relaying timeout information other than it being a final timeout, but in this case, I think you have to call the T since it is the coach who is primarily responsible for not requesting a timeout when none exists. However, would you make the call this way if a coach had asked the official scorer if he had any left and the scorer mistakenly said yes, when the answer should have been no - and the coach then requests and is granted one?

Guys, need I remind you that it's not YOUR game. Your personal philosophy doesn't matter. As a game official your duty is to enforce the NFHS rules as written. The NFHS issued a POE about not putting your personal opinions and philosophies into administering the game. The committee stated that doing so was detrimental to the game. Just because you don't like the way that the rule is written doesn't mean that you can alter it.

Yeah. I am a bit surprised all 3 of you guys are wrong.:)

Your personal philosophy doesn't matter either. We have different opinion of what the rule as written is intended to say. You apparently are certain that you are right. We see it differently. Why the condescending attitude?

Is there another example of a situation where the basket counts because the official failed to blow the whistle quickly enough?

Okay, I'll modify my post to say, "The FED rules and case plays clearly indicate that the official can correct the misinformation and anyone suggesting otherwise is inserting his or her own opinion into the game."

Better?