Correctable Error Situation....First Part...

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by CMHCoachNRef

OK, the handling of the free throws error was just to add an extra step. I have a real concern with Correctable Errors. In the scenario that I just posed, Team A gained a tremendous advantage due to the Correctable Error which has always seemed to me to be unfair.

If A1 is fouled resulting in a common foul, Team A would be entitled to EITHER:
A. the ball -- if the foul would have been the 1st to 6th Team B committed in the half OR
B. a 1+1 FT situation for A1 -- if the foul would have been the 7th to 9th Team B committed in the half OR
C. a 2 shot situation for A1 -- if the foul would have been the 10th or more committed by Team B in the half.

In the case where the scorer's table has blundered, Team A can get BOTH A. AND B. above. This seems to be an unfair outcome.

I can see how one could conclude that Team A is entitled to FTs IF they failed to score on the subsequent possession, BUT, once the team has scored on that possession, it would seem that the error should no longer be correctable since the team already received the full benefit of the foul.

Thoughts???

The philosophy of the CE rule has been debated many times. Either BktBallRef or Bob Jenkins put it very elegantly. The comment was that the rule is not designed to be fair. It is designed such that each team has an incentive to prevent the error from occurring and get the situation right in the first place. Otherwise, what at first looks to be a potential benefit to their team may well come back to hurt them later. That can clearly be seen in the situation which you have posed.

The team which committed the technical foul earlier should have pointed out to the officials that this foul was incorrectly not being counted as a team foul. There was significant time to do this prior to the 7th team foul of the half being committed. Instead it is possible that this team thought, "Oh good, they aren't counting the T as a team foul. That's good for us." However, later it came back to cost them.