Correctable Error Question

[PIAA REF]

I don't understand the rational behind the first Case book situation. (Pretty sure it is the first)

Basically it goes like this, A1 is fouled, Is awarded a 1-1 but should have had a 2 shot foul, Misses the first shot and the ball is rebounded by B then passed to the division line to B2. Then the error is discovered.
Ruling is to go back and shoot the free throw with players on the line because there was no change in possession. Doesn't B get penalized in this case. What if the shot is missed and rebounded by A? To me it should be A has 1 free throw with laned cleared then B's ball at the division line.

What say you?

[gazebra]

B should not have had the ball at that point since the 2 free throws haven't been shot. Besides, the ball is still dead since the free throw is to be followed by another. B doesn't get penalized because they have the opportunity to rebound the ball off the second free throw or will get the ball if it is made.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by PIAA REF

I don't understand the rational behind the first Case book situation. (Pretty sure it is the first)

Basically it goes like this, A1 is fouled, Is awarded a 1-1 but should have had a 2 shot foul, Misses the first shot and the ball is rebounded by B then passed to the division line to B2. Then the error is discovered.
Ruling is to go back and shoot the free throw with players on the line because there was no change in possession. Doesn't B get penalized in this case. What if the shot is missed and rebounded by A? To me it should be A has 1 free throw with laned cleared then B's ball at the division line.

What say you?

I agree with you....B getting the rebound of A's FT is a change of possession...A had possession on the FT and B had possession on the rebound. If that is not a change, I don't know what is. This is the way it used to be ruled (unless they flipped it with an unannounced change).

[gazebra]

I think you missed the part that they shouldn't have possession until AFTER the second free throw--that is the opportunity to rebound, not after the first free throw

[Adam]

Originally Posted by gazebra

I think you missed the part that they shouldn't have possession until AFTER the second free throw--that is the opportunity to rebound, not after the first free throw

"Shouldn't" doesn't matter when it comes to CE situations.

I believe there was a high profile NCAA case, (Iowa State at Kansas), a few years ago in which this scenario happened. Kansas grabbed a rebound, went the length of the floor and scored, and the officials then realized their error. They allowed the basket to stand, had ISU shoot the free throw with no one on the lane, then gave the ball to ISU for an endline throwin at the other end. I do recall it was confirmed by the conference they got it right.

[FrankHtown]

I thought, up until this case book ruling, that they clear the lane, let A shoot the second shot, then give B the ball at the point of interruption, since there was a change of possession.

Now, if the timer was on his/her toes, and didn't start the clock after the missed free throw, I could see going back and shooting the free throw with players on the lane.

[gazebra]

the ball going in the basket changes that play (although some would say that since the ball was dead that it shouldn't be allowed to be scored). The free throw to follow another cannot be a change in possession since there was no "rebound" off the first free throw.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by PIAA REF

I don't understand the rational behind the first Case book situation. (Pretty sure it is the first)

Basically it goes like this, A1 is fouled, Is awarded a 1-1 but should have had a 2 shot foul, Misses the first shot and the ball is rebounded by B then passed to the division line to B2. Then the error is discovered.
Ruling is to go back and shoot the free throw with players on the line because there was no change in possession. Doesn't B get penalized in this case. What if the shot is missed and rebounded by A? To me it should be A has 1 free throw with laned cleared then B's ball at the division line.

What say you?

That ruling was changed last year, and we discussed it then. Most thought it was a mistake (that is, they agree with you and the "old" ruling that A shoots the remaining throw with no one on the line and B gets the ball at the POI).

The NCAA ruling seems to be the same as the old FED ruling (see AR 20)

[Adam]

Originally Posted by gazebra

the ball going in the basket changes that play (although some would say that since the ball was dead that it shouldn't be allowed to be scored). The free throw to follow another cannot be a change in possession since there was no "rebound" off the first free throw.

???
I'm not following you on this one.
The ball is not dead, so that argument doesn't fly unless you are talking to someone who hasn't read the case plays.

The official awarded one and one, not two, so the ball is live on the miss. What "should" have happened is irrelevant.

I can see the argument that the ball going through constitutes a change of possession since A is about to get the ball due to the made score, but there's no possession yet so the argument could go either way. The rebound off the free throw should also be a change in possession, since A had the ball for a shot and B got the rebound (how in the hell else do you define a change in possession?)

There absolutely was a "rebound," since the officials awarded/announced a one and one rather than 2. The thing about CEs is they do not go back and re-write history, they simply proscribe a pattern to use when fixing the error.

[gazebra]

Maybe I am not saying this the way that I intend to---correcting the error would imply that the error has been made/finished. Because the shooter hasn't shot all of his merited free throws, the officials erroneous information didn't put either team at a disadvantage. If the officials had said 2 and it was really a 1-1 then one team could be put at a disadvantage (case 8.6.1). Therefore, shoot the second and play-on.

Now if B had gotten the ball in the basket, now that is a whole different story, which is what I was referring to from one of the other posts.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by gazebra

Maybe I am not saying this the way that I intend to---correcting the error would imply that the error has been made/finished. Because the shooter hasn't shot all of his merited free throws, the officials erroneous information didn't put either team at a disadvantage. If the officials had said 2 and it was really a 1-1 then one team could be put at a disadvantage (case 8.6.1). Therefore, shoot the second and play-on.

Now if B had gotten the ball in the basket, now that is a whole different story, which is what I was referring to from one of the other posts.

Sure a team gets put at a disadvantage. A rebound they earned has been taken away.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Sure a team gets put at a disadvantage. A rebound they earned has been taken away.

Exactly!

[rwest]

Originally Posted by gazebra

the ball going in the basket changes that play (although some would say that since the ball was dead that it shouldn't be allowed to be scored). The free throw to follow another cannot be a change in possession since there was no "rebound" off the first free throw.

The officials errorneously allowed the clock to start, true, but the ball was live. You can't say the ball was dead because it "should" have been dead. This is where the error occurred. The ball was live. Also, there was a rebound off of the first free throw. We can't say the ball was dead and there was no rebound because there wouldn't have been had we not had an error.

[rwest]

Originally Posted by gazebra

Maybe I am not saying this the way that I intend to---correcting the error would imply that the error has been made/finished. Because the shooter hasn't shot all of his merited free throws, the officials erroneous information didn't put either team at a disadvantage. If the officials had said 2 and it was really a 1-1 then one team could be put at a disadvantage (case 8.6.1). Therefore, shoot the second and play-on.

Now if B had gotten the ball in the basket, now that is a whole different story, which is what I was referring to from one of the other posts.

The error was made/finished when the officials allowed the team to rebound the ball. True, no team was placed at a disadvantage, but not because the 2nd shot had not been attempted yet. No team was disadvantaged because both teams got the same information and acted upon it. Team B won the rebound.

I agree with Snaqwells that logically team B is disadvantaged in that they lose the rebound and I also agree that logically this is a change of possession. However, the ruling on this is that this is not a change of possession. It says so in the case play. So in the majority minds of the rules committee this is not a change in possession and we should call it like the case play says. Unless that is someone knows for certain that this is not the intent of the rules committee. I'd have to seen something in writing to believe because they make it extremely clear in the case play. Can't be more clear than that.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

That ruling was changed last year, and we discussed it then. Most thought it was a mistake (that is, they agree with you and the "old" ruling that A shoots the remaining throw with no one on the line and B gets the ball at the POI).

The NCAA ruling seems to be the same as the old FED ruling (see AR 20)

Correct. We discussed this last season.
The prevailing opinion is that this Case Book ruling is wrong. It does not adhere to the text of 2-10.