Unmerited free throw
 

A1 is fouled. It is Team B's 10th foul of the half. A1 misses the first and makes the second free throw. As B1 is holding the ball for the ensuing throw-in, the table informs the official that it was only Team B's 9th foul of the half.

Officials cancel A1's successful free throw and resume at the POI. What is the POI in this case? NFHS rules, please.

POI would be an AP throw-in where the stopage of play happened.
see casebook 2.10.1 sit D

Does no one have a problem with this?!?!? :eek:

Is This A Trick Question ???
 

"As B1 is holding the ball for the ensuing throw-in" is the point of interuption ???

That's what I thought the answer was but the casebook does say AP throw in:confused::confused:

-Josh

How can there be an "ensuing throw-in" from a free throw that was canceled? ;)

NFHS 2-10-5: "ART. 5 . . . Points scored, consumed time and additional activity, which may occur prior to the recognition of an error, shall not be nullified. Errors because of free-throw attempts by the wrong player or at the wrong basket shall be corrected by applying 8-1 and 2."

There were no points scored, so that's not an issue. The clock won't have started, that's not an issue either. About the only argument for the throw-in being the POI is that it constitutes "additional activity". OTOH, the "right" answer to a "final" free throw ending without any clear team possession is the arrow. And since the throw-in from the unmerited free throw has not ended, it's not too late to correct this error as well.

That's my argument, and I'm sticking to it.

Which is in conflict with 2.10.1 Sit G.

BTW Sit G is correct. The ruling for Sit D needs to be that the error is discovered while the ball is still dead prior to Team B taking possession and stepping OOB for the throw-in. Once the throw-in count has begun, the POI is now that throw-in.

Whoever rewrote the case plays for 2.10 this year really screwed up. 2.10.1 Sit A is also wrong.

Now Let Me Tell You What I Really Think ...
 

Now you got me started. So what else is new? These errors, and contradictions, seem to get worse, and become cumulative every year. Aren't editors supposed to edit, which should include proofreading? With the money, and staff, that the NFHS has, they should be able to check the entire rulebook, and casebook every year, not just check the new, and changed, rules. Check the old rules, and case plays as well. Maybe it's time for the NFHS to have two different positions, an interpreter, and an editor. In my case, it's not just the NFHS, but it's also IAABO. Their mechanics manual is terrible. With the rule change this year, it has the lead official observing the second lane space tableside, while the NFHS calls the space that the defender must be in the first space. There are always errors in the questions, or the answer key, on the IAABO refresher exam every year, and this year's IAABO new officials exam had two errors in the questions that we had to orally read to our candidates before they took the exam. Some good old fashioned proofreading would have discovered these two errors before the exam was printed. Maybe both the NFHS, and IAABO should hire some experienced, varsity officials, who also happen to be high school, or college, English teachers, on their summer hiatus, to proofread these publications, and exams. We all pay annual dues to these national organizations. Shouldn't we expect more from them? Now let me carefully get off my high horse, which is on top of my soap box. I'm getting old, and I don't want to twist an ankle.

I was all set to agree with BITS, but given the way that 2.10.1 D is written Nevada is right.

If the game is interrupted for correction when B has the ball for a throw-in, then that's the POI, just as it says in 2.10.1 G.

If, instead, the game is interrupted while A is still shooting the second (unmerited) FT, then the POI is the end of the first FT with no team in possession. At that point, I'd use the AP.

Agree, Nevada? And, what's wrong with 2.10.1 A?

It's almost as if whoever wrote them thinks the correction is "go back to the time of the error and start over" and opposed to "resume from the point the game was interrupted."

Man, am I glad I saw this thread. We had a big discussion about this last week at our rules study session, and I just couldn't figure out why this would be correct.

If B has the ball for the throw-in, it's live. If they throw the ball in and time starts and then we discover the error, obviously B is getting the ball back where they had it.

I see absolutely no rules justification to make this case ruling correct...

I agree. Or she knows to use the POI, but she thinks that the POI is really the POE (Point of Error).

That's why I started the thread, JDW, and why I couldn't believe nobody jumped in when PaulK posted his answer with the case play citation.

I'm glad you found it, too. :)

THERE WERE POINTS SCORED. Since you had an unmerited free throw, you cancel the throw and ANYTHING THAT HAS HAPPENED DURING THE THROW THAT WAS UNMERITED UNLESS IT'S FLAGRANT, UNSPORTING, INTENTIONAL OR TECHNICAL. So I would take that as nothing has happened after the first free throw, is that maybe where they are getting the ruling, go with Alternating possesion?? They went back to the first free throw missing and therefore no team control, so go with arrow. Since the ball had not came in and no one still has no control, I would have to say go with the arrow on this one.

You don't cancel everything that happened after the error. You cancel what happens during the unmerited free throw (rebounding foul is about the only thing that would happen). B1 grabbing the ball for the throw in, making it live, which is after the error and therefore shouldn't be canceled.

The rules would have to make a distinction for POI between a throw in and after that same throw in. The rules make no such distinction, the error was recognized while B1 had the ball for a throw in, therefore the POI should be B's throw in.