NOT a Correctable Error, BUT should it be???

[Adam]

I could see extending this one to correctable until either a change in possession or the first dead ball.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by CMHCoachNRef

THROW-IN BY WRONG TEAM BY MISTAKE

My question is, why hasn't the NFHS extended the time of correction from the time the throw-in ends to any time during the wrongly awarded possession? The officiating crew can make the mistake -- AND FIX IT -- up until the throw-in ends. It would seem to me that giving the officials that extra time would eliminate a good percentage of these errors.

Thoughts???

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I could see extending this one to correctable until either a change in possession or the first dead ball.

If I had a vote, I would in the positive for a change on this type of play every day of the week, and twice on Sunday.

Thinking out loud here:

If the wrong team is awarded the throw-in, and the ball is legally inbounded, then there is an incorrect possession at this point. The way I see it, here are the possible future events:

The team Incorrectly with possession (team I) will either:

• score (S)
• retain/lose possession from an offensive/defensive rebound (OR/DR)
• retain/lose possession from an offensive/defensive foul (OF/DF)
• retain/lose possession from an offensive/defensive violation (OV/DV)
• lose possession due to a defensive steal (DS)
• or have possession when the error is discovered and none of the above will have occured (NIL)

If (NIL), then stop the game, and award possession the Correct team. The clock will be incorrect, and C might need those seconds, especially in a late-game situation.

If the error is discovered in cases of DR, OF, or OV, or DS then C now has correct possession, but again, with lost time.

In the case of S, C loses time and there's an argument for I not keeping the points.

If the case of OR or DV, then we can revert to the NIL case and C loses time again.

In the case of DF, C loses time and there's an argument for C not being charged with the foul, and perhaps bonus points because of the foul.

How far do we go back? There could in fact be repeated DVs (OOB for example), where the only effect is the time on the clock, but C should still be entitled to the ball.

[jdmara]

I understand where you are going but most would go as far to say that the currently CE procedures are not "fair" anyways. If an official makes a mistake, they make a mistake. Move on and the game continues. I remember someone on this board saying, "Well coach, the good news is that you get two out of the next three alternating possession arrows ". I don't see this error very often, to be honest. There is no need to make the CE ruling any more complicated.

-Josh

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by jdmara

I understand where you are going but most would go as far to say that the currently CE procedures are not "fair" anyways. If an official makes a mistake, they make a mistake. Move on and the game continues. I remember someone on this board saying, "Well coach, the good news is that you get two out of the next three alternating possession arrows ". I don't see this error very often, to be honest. There is no need to make the CE ruling any more complicated.

-Josh

The CE rules are complicated?

[jdmara]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

The CE rules are complicated?

They aren't complicated for me but obviously coaches find them complicated because they have a mini stroke whenever I've seen them applied (Knock on wood I've only had one in the games I've ever done). The grip is always, "that's not fair"

-Josh

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by jdmara

The gripe is always, "that's not fair"

"Coach, the rules define fairness."