NEW Case Book play 2.10.1 Situation A

[Nevadaref]

For those who have the 2008-09 Case Book, do you think that the NFHS messed up the ruling on this one or that they are considering the ball to have remained dead since it should have and thus no team control ever occurred?

Brief summary:
A1 is fouled and entitled to 2 FTs. Officials state and administer 1 and 1. The first attempt is unsuccessful. B4 rebounds and passes to B2 near midcourt. The error is recognized at this time during the live ball.
NFHS ruling: Stop play and correct the error by allowing A1 his 2nd FT attempt WITH PLAYERS ON THE LANE and play resumes from the FT.

Rationale: The rebound and passing by Team B "constitutes no change in team possession."

[JugglingReferee]

I support the ruling that no change of possession took place.

The truth of the matter, even if the official initially told the players that it was a 1+1 situation, is that it is a 2 shot situation.

Because of that, all that B did was pass around a dead ball. I wouldn't penalize B for any sort of delay of game because they acted on erroneous information from the official.

I think you don't penalize fouls that aren't technical or intentional, and no time should legally come off the clock.

[Raymond]

Does this also apply if A2 rebounds the ball and scores a basket before the error is recognized?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

For those who have the 2008-09 Case Book, do you think that the NFHS messed up the ruling on this one or that they are considering the ball to have remained dead since it should have and thus no team control ever occurred? A1 is fouled and entitled to 2 FTs. Officials state and administer 1 and 1. The first attempt is unsuccessful. B4 rebounds and passes to B2 near midcourt. The error is recognized at this time during the live ball. NFHS ruling: Stop play and correct the error by allowing A1 his 2nd FT attempt WITH PLAYERS ON THE LANE and play resumes from the FT. Rationale: The rebound and passing by Team B constitutes no change in team possession."

Is this a correctable error? Yes. Failure to award a merited free throw, the second free throw of a two shot foul. 2-10-1: Officials may correct an error if a rule is inadvertently set aside and results in: a. Failure to award a merited free throw.

Was it recognized in the correctable error time frame? Yes. 2-10-2: In order to correct any of the officials' errors listed in Article 1, such error must be recognized by an official during the first dead ball after the clock has properly started.

After the error was corrected, was the ball put back into play properly? I'm not sure. 2-10-6: If an error is corrected, play shall be resumed from the point at which it was interrupted to rectify the error, unless it involves awarding a merited free throw(s) and there has been no change of team possession since the error was made, in which case play shall resume as after any free-throw attempt(s).

In this play, a change of team possession may have occurred. If the error occurred when the official stated one-and-one, then Team A had team possession, when the ball was at the disposal of A1, during the first (missed) free throw. There was no team possession after the ball was released on the first free throw. Team B obtained team possession when B4 rebounded the ball, and maintained team possession when B2 had possession of the ball, at which time the error was discovered. A change team possession from Team A to Team B. In this case put the ball back in play at the point of interruption, ball going to Team B for a throwin at midcourt.

However, one might say that actual error occurred after the first free throw attempt, when A1 did not get his, or her, second merited free throw, when B rebounded the ball, i.e. Team A never had team control after the error, so there never was a change in team possession, Team B had the ball for the entire time after the error occurred. In this case, put the ball back in play with the second free throw, with players on the lane line to rebound a miss, or continue playing with a throwin by Team B after a make.

Before reading this thread, I would have gone with the first case, change in team possession, put the ball back in play at the point of interruption, ball going to Team B for a throwin at midcourt. After reading this thread, I'm not so sure that that is the correct procedure. I can't wait to see some other Forum members give their opinions of this situation.

[Adam]

I've always thought of a defensive rebound on a freethrow to be change of possession.
A had possession on a live ball, B gets the rebound. How is this not a change of possession?
B got a legitimate rebound when all players thought the ball was live.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I've always thought of a defensive rebound on a free throw to be change of possession. A had possession on a live ball, B gets the rebound. How is this not a change of possession? B got a legitimate rebound when all players thought the ball was live.

"I've always thought of a defensive rebound on a free throw to be change of possession". I think you're correct.

"All players thought the ball was live". The ball was alive. It was live as soon as the A1 had the ball at his, or her, disposal. I don't think the error changes the status of the ball being live, or dead.

I think the question in this situation becomes, what was the error, and when did the error occur.

Look at the rule again: 2-10-6: If an error is corrected, play shall be resumed from the point at which it was interrupted to rectify the error, unless it involves awarding a merited free throw(s) and there has been no change of team possession since the error was made, in which case play shall resume as after any free-throw attempt(s).

Was the error the official stating "One-and-one", instead of "Two shots"; or was the error not awarding A1 their second merited free throw?

Once you answer that question, then the question becomes, "Has there been a change of team possession since the error was made?" If you deem the error to be the erroneous statement of "One-and-one", then there certainly has been a change in team possession. If, on the other hand, you deem the error to be not awarding A1 their second merited free throw, then there has been no change in team possession, Team B has had team possession the entire time "since the error was made".

Since Nevadaref posted this situation, I'm starting to lean toward the error to be not awarding A1 their second merited free throw, no change in team possession, put the ball back in play with the second free throw, with players on the lane line. I would have gone the other way, change in team possession, put the ball back in play at the point of interruption, after giving A1 his, or her, merited free throw, before Nevadaref's original post started me doing some serious thinking about this situation.

[Adam]

I'm gonna have to get my book out of the car, but I think this is a change from previous years' case plays.

[Adam]

Okay, I was wrong. No case play in last year's book addressed this specific situation. A got the rebound in the case book, not B.

[Nevadaref]

For the record, I believe that the case play is a mistake. The fact that I read it and said WTF is the very reason that I posted it.

I contend that Team B rebounding a missed FT attempted by a player from Team A is definitely a change of team possession.
I would award the 2nd FT with the lane empty and then resume from the POI, which would be a throw-in for Team B near mid-court.

[Scrapper1]

Personally, I like the philosophy of "the ball was dead, even though the players thought it was live". It makes it a little harder to swallow in this case, though, when the officials "state and administer" the wrong number of free throws. That means that even the officials believed the ball was live.

Frankly, I like the ruling; but I don't think it actually follows the rule.

[eg-italy]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

Personally, I like the philosophy of "the ball was dead, even though the players thought it was live". It makes it a little harder to swallow in this case, though, when the officials "state and administer" the wrong number of free throws. That means that even the officials believed the ball was live.

Frankly, I like the ruling; but I don't think it actually follows the rule.

What if team B had scored before the recognition of the error? Say that the error is discovered after the basket and before the ball is live for team A's throw in.

Ciao

[IREFU2]

I would thinks this is a correctable error......

[bob jenkins]

FWIW, I agree with Nevada on this -- it's not how I would like to see the ruling.

I also quickly glanced through the other new / changed case plays in this year's books -- and there was at least one other that caused me to go, "Hmmm...". I didn't have time to re-read it (to see if I mis-read it) or to check it against the rule.

I did notice what I'm almost certain is an incorrect ruling in the RefMag "Basketball Preview" pamphlet dealing with CEs, though. To summarize: A1 erroneously awarded bonus FTs, and makes both. B1 inbounds the ball to B2. B2 is fouled. Error (on A1) is discovered. RefMag Ruling: Cancel A1's FTs and give the ball back to A near the spot where A1 was fouled. My Ruling: Cancel A1's FTs and administer the foul on B2 (a throw-in in this instance).

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

FWIW, I agree with Nevada on this -- it's not how I would like to see the ruling.

I also quickly glanced through the other new / changed case plays in this year's books -- and there was at least one other that caused me to go, "Hmmm...". I didn't have time to re-read it (to see if I mis-read it) or to check it against the rule.

I did notice what I'm almost certain is an incorrect ruling in the RefMag "Basketball Preview" pamphlet dealing with CEs, though. To summarize: A1 erroneously awarded bonus FTs, and makes both. B1 inbounds the ball to B2. B2 is fouled. Error (on A1) is discovered. RefMag Ruling: Cancel A1's FTs and give the ball back to A near the spot where A1 was fouled. My Ruling: Cancel A1's FTs and administer the foul on B2 (a throw-in in this instance).

See my previous advice.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

LESSON: ALWAYS LISTEN TO BOB!

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

For those who have the 2008-09 Case Book, do you think that the NFHS messed up the ruling on this one or that they are considering the ball to have remained dead since it should have and thus no team control ever occurred?

Brief summary:
A1 is fouled and entitled to 2 FTs. Officials state and administer 1 and 1. The first attempt is unsuccessful. B4 rebounds and passes to B2 near midcourt. The error is recognized at this time during the live ball.
NFHS ruling: Stop play and correct the error by allowing A1 his 2nd FT attempt WITH PLAYERS ON THE LANE and play resumes from the FT.

Rationale: The rebound and passing by Team B "constitutes no change in team possession."

NevadaRef:

I am leaning toward your position that the NFHS screwed the pooch (as our baseball brethern would say) in the play. I never liked this change in the Correctable Error section of the rules. I have always taken the position that treating the correction as a Point-of-Interuption was more logical; just stop the game, make the correction, and resume play from the point-of-interruption. BUT, NOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!! (Sorry John Belushi where ever you are.) Some people (for the sake of argument, let us say that Team A had gotten the rebound in the play in the OP) said that it is not fair for Team A to shoot the free throw and then keep the ball. Too bad, That's life ("that's what all the people say. You're riding high in April, Shot down in May. But I know I'm gonna change that tune, When I'm back on top, back on top in June." Thank you Francis Albert where ever you are. I can't wait to use a Jimmy Durante reference so I can say "Good night Mrs. Calabash, where ever you are." ) Anyway, I digress, because I am off my meds.

The ironic thing about this play is that the idea of team and player possession has been around for over 50 years but only team control and player control have been defined in the rules.

Have a good one everybody.

MTD, Sr.