Difference in ruling on same casebook play?
 

Please look at the ruling on 2.10.1.D and the ruling on 2.10.1.G.d. In both plays B1 has the ball out of bounds for a throwin after a successful unmerited free throw.

The POI ruling in 2.10.1.D goes to arrow since no goal has been scored. B1 had the ball for a throwin.

The ruling in 2.10.1.G.d the POI goes to B since B1 had the ball for a throwin.

Am I misreading this or is this not the same play - successful unmerited free throw(s) with B1 standing out of bounds for the throwin? One time they go to arrow and one time they go to B1 because he was standing outofbounds?

in the 2nd, the game has continued from the spot of the foul. Even though we are cancelling the points scored, the game continued. Team B took the ball out of the basket after the 2nd made throw, stepped out of bounds and was looking to make a throw-in. This was the POI -- when the officials were notified of the error.

Ronny:

They are NOT the same play.

Play 2.10.1.D: A1 was to be awarded a one plus one bonus free throw. A1 was erroneously awarded two free throw of which the first one was unsuccessful and the second one was successful. The Correctable Error (CE) was the awarding of a second free throw to A1. Therefore, the POI of interruption is when A1's free throw is missed; at this point there is not Team Control (TC) and therefore the ball is put back into play using the AP Arrow.

Play 2.10.1.G(d): A1 was erroneously awarded free throws instead of Team A being awarded a throw-in for B1's foul. The CE was discovered within the appropriate time frame. Since the correction was the canceling of A1's succesful free throws and Team B's throw-in for the erroneously awarded free throws, play resumes at the POI which is the awarding of a throw-in to Team A, which is the correct penalty for B1's foul.

MTD, Sr.

This is not the ruling on this play.

OPPS!! :eek:

I misread the RULING, but having read the RULING more closely, I am not sure that Team B should be awarded the throw-in. I am inclined to say that the POI is the erroneously awarding free throws to A1.

MTD, Sr.

MTD,

In the 2nd case play (play d) they gave the ball back to Team B - not Team A - because B1 had the ball out of bounds.

Besides doesn't POI have more to do with WHERE was the interruption when the error was discovered, instead of WHEN did the error occur? What if B1 had thrown the ball in and Team B froze the ball for 4 minutes and then the error was discovered during a time out. The POI would be at the place the ball was near at the time of the T.O.

In the case plays, both times B1 was standing out of bounds with the ball for a thowin when the error was discovered. And, both times was after an umerited successful f.throw.

This play is the opposite of the play where A is not awarded free throws and is awarded a throw-in. When discovered, if change of possession has occurred, and A has the ball again, now A gets both the free throws and the ball. In this case, the error is discovered while B has the ball, so B keeps the ball and A gets..........nothing.
Seems harsh when described this way, but if several possession had taken place since the error it seems less severe. For better or for worse, this is where the committee chose to draw the lines in this rule.

Ronny:

Read my post immediately before your latest post.

MTD, Sr.

I don't have the books handy, but I'm 93.5% certain that:

1) D is a new case

2) It was discussed here when it was first issued (said so you can search to get more information)

3) Most of us here disagree with the ruling (it's as if the rule was changed from "POI" to "do-over.")

Bob and MTD,

So, you kinda agree that the plays should be treated the same? Which case has the correct ruling (in y'alls' opinion?)

Mulk

Do over? Mulk would never allow a do-over in one of his games!

Under the current rules, I think G is the correct ruling. (said without looking at my books, and just based on the recollection of our previous discussions)

Here is the thread where we talked about this very thing:

http://forum.officiating.com/basketb...ree-throw.html

As I said in that thread, I think Mary Struckoff considers the POI to actually the Point of the Error, which is a mistake IMHO.

I would not be at all surprised if this ruling were "fixed" this summer.

Can they fix the stupid backcourt ruling while they're at it?

Do you know what is scarey? I was thinking like Mary Struckhoff. LOL

I had to go back and re-read the original thread. I have to agree with you.

MTD, Sr.

Process promptly.
 

Still dreaming about your former high school sweetheart?

You need to ask WeaselPants for some of his meds. :D

MTD, Sr.

Falling rocks.
 

As in "like like"?

I don't think the casebook play for G is correct (for the D subsection). The rule says "rectify the error," and if you give the ball to B for a throw in, you aren't rectifying it. Besides, it doesn't make any sense. How is it "correcting" an error when you are depriving team A of their rightful penalty enforcement?

The CE rules are not meant to be "fair," per se. Bob Jenkins says it better, but they're essentially designed to give both teams an incentive to try to prevent them as well.

A coach allowing a CE to continue in the hopes of benefiting is, essentially, eating a box of chocolates. He doesn't know what he's going to get.

When it comes to coaches, stupid is as stupid does. :D

MTD, Sr.

It happens.

Where is this written? Basically they are saying we are going to penalize a coach/team for not doing the officials' job? :confused:

If that is the philosophy behind how the CE rules are written then someone needs to go back to the drawing board and come up with some intelligent reasoning.

And that's all anyone has to say about that!! :D

Actually, in most cases, it is the OFFICIAL SCORER who has either made a mistake or has not tallied everything in time NOT the officials. We discussed CEs awhile back. I agree with your line of thinking about the logic of it all. The situation in which TEAM A (the home team) gets fouled by Team B with the OFFICIAL SCORER (Team A scorer) indicating that it is a non-shooting foul situation. Team A then inbounds the ball, DRAINS a THREE. As soon as the ball goes through the hoop, the TEAM A TIMER sounds the horn to indicate that actually the foul was Team B's 7th hence a 1+1 should have been awarded. A1 makes both ends of the 1+1 for a five point play.

The fact that the CE rules do not wipe out the need for FTs when the team SCORED as a direct result of the awarded inbounds is beyond my comprehension.