New Correctable error casebook play 2.10.1 - NCAA treatment
 

I know that there have been several threads regarding the new NFHS casebook plays on correctable errors. My specific inquiry is if anyone has definitive knowledge as to whether the ruling in 2.10.1 situation A - line up and play off make or miss - is the correct procedure for NCAA men's rules?

If it is not, why not? The wording of NFHS rule 2-10.6 and NCAA 2-12.5 are almost identical and do not give rise to any apparent difference between the tow codes.

A similar play happened with about 3.3 seconds left in a Div-II game and many officials disagree with the treament. In the play B-2 rebounded the first shot miss and immediately called timeout. During the timeout the table informed referees that it should have been 2 shots (additional information: thisis after the table originally told officials that the scoreboard was wrong and it was only 9 fouls!!! - talk about your nightmare).

NO Responses???
 

57 views of this issue and not 1 response!
No wonder so many officials disagree on this play at NCAA level.

My view is that the case play is NOT correct at the NCAA level (or, for that matter, at the NFHS level).

That said, I don't have the NCAA case book handy to check on any of its rulings -- but the case book is on-line and since it seems so importatn to you, maybe you would take the initiative to check it out yourself.

It looks as though the treatment of NFHS 2.10.1(A), and NCAA A.R. 27 are the same. Both cases involve team A not shooting a FT that should have been awarded, and in both cases, team A still had possession when the error was discovered. Therefore, we would line up to shoot the FT('s) as normal.

In the OP's case, B rebounded and called a TO. So, since there was a change of possession, A would shoot the second of 2, with no one on the lane, and play would resume at POI, which was a throw-in for B closest to the spot where they were when the TO was requested.

Am I missing something, or is it the same under both codes?

Are you using this year's FED case book?

The play, which seems to be what the OP is asking:

*2.10.1 SITUATION A: A1 is fouled and entitled to two free throws under the
double-bonus rule, however, the officials indicate a one-and-one bonus situation.
The first attempt is unsuccessful; B4 rebounds the ball and passes it up to B2.
The error is discovered with B2 in possession of the live ball near mid-court.
RULING: The error is discovered within the correctable error timeframe, and shall
be corrected. Team B securing the rebound and passing to a teammate constitutes
no change in team possession. Therefore, A1 will receive the merited free
throw with players on the lane and play resumes from the free throw. (2-10-1a)

No, I wasn't, and now I see what you mean. I guess I vaguely remember this discussion earlier, but my eyes have a tendency to glaze over when the subject of correctible errors comes up. Even though I understand the basics, for me "correctible errors" is a four-letter word, and I try to avoid them as much as humanly possible.

Fwiw, I don't agree with this new interp either. I think there <B>has</B> been a change of possession with the rebound by B.

Maybe you are thinking about this play
 

A1 is fouled by B1. The table says we are in the bonus. A1 shoots and misses the 1st shot when Team B rebounds the ball. The table buzzes us over and says its only 6 fouls. So I give team B the ball because of the POI since they had possession of the ball when the table buzz us over.

In FED, this is correct since B had poss. In NCAA, the ball would be given back to Team A where the original foul happen

maybe you would take the initiative to check it out yourself

Bob - if it was in the NCAA casebook I wouldn't have had the need to ask the question here. I even looked in old NCAA casebooks as well as the NCAA manuals handed out at the Div-I meetings. Heck, it wasn't in the NFHS casebook prior to this year - hence the * by the play. That is the point and the reason for my question - which, other than your opinion that NFHS has it wrong, hasn't been answered definitively. And the NFHS may have it wrong, but that is the rule until they revoke it.