Table Doesn't Tell Officials That the Player Fouled Out

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by AKOFL

I would like some carification on the last part. If other aspects of the error are correctable, the procedure to be followed is included among the duties of the officials. What does this meen exactly?

Just what it says. If any of the action falls under the purview of the five correctable errors listed in 2-10, then the officials shall take the proper action.

Note that a player with five fouls, but who has not yet been disqualified by notification to the coach from an official is not a wrong player attempting a FT. The NFHS has ruled that such a player is the proper player until being DQ'd.

[AKOFL]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Just what it says. If any of the action falls under the purview of the five correctable errors listed in 2-10, then the officials shall take the proper action.

Note that a player with five fouls, but who has not yet been disqualified by notification to the coach from an official is not a wrong player attempting a FT. The NFHS has ruled that such a player is the proper player until being DQ'd.

So can you think of a for instance for my simple mind. I had thought of the free-throw but had drawn the same conclusion as you stated. Just trying to get a hold on what this means in real life.

[Nevadaref]

Sure, consider that a player with five fouls remains in the game for several minutes. During this time some other situation occurs which is a correctable error and this gets the attention of the officials and the table crew. At this point the scorer notices that the player should have been DQ'd a few minutes ago, but wasn't. The rule tells you to take care of the DQ now and allow all other action to count, with the exception of the pending correctable error. The rules-writers wanted to make it clear that a correctable error is never ignored because of some other factor. That's all that this is saying.

[AKOFL]

Got it. I was trying to read to much into it. Thanks Nevada

[chseagle]

How was play able to continue, if the one player was DQ'd due to having 5 fouls?

I have done both scoreboard/timer & scorebook operations for the past 4 years at my Alma Mater. Every time I learned of a player having 5 fouls I immediately let the coach & floor officials know of the DQ.

Sounds like to me that those doing scoreboard/timer & scorebook need to learn their positions.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by chseagle

Sounds like to me that those doing scoreboard/timer & scorebook need to learn their positions.

Sounds like they need to read the Kama Sutra.

[chseagle]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Sounds like they need to read the Kama Sutra.

Not only read the Kama Sutra, but they also need to be properly trained how to do table operations.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by chseagle

How was play able to continue, if the one player was DQ'd due to having 5 fouls?

I have done both scoreboard/timer & scorebook operations for the past 4 years at my Alma Mater. Every time I learned of a player having 5 fouls I immediately let the coach & floor officials know of the DQ.

Sounds like to me that those doing scoreboard/timer & scorebook need to learn their positions.

It happens. As evidenced here.
Names redacted in the following situation:

3-pointer from the top of the key made it a 71-66 game with 2:39 to play. But the [Xs] watched as the [Ys] struck for five straight points in a 30-second span, four by [Y1] and a free throw by [Y2], tying the game at 71-71 with 2:01 on the clock.

[X1] hit a pair of free throws as part of his 14-point fourth quarter, but [Y2] and [Y1] answered right back with back-to-back buckets, finally giving [Team Y] the lead at 75-73 with just over a minute left in the game.

Ironically, the [Ys] should never have owned the lead. [Y1] re-entered the game with 3:02 remaining, but he had committed his fifth foul earlier in the fourth. It wasn't until he picked up his sixth foul that the officials claimed responsibility for the mistake and did not punish [Team Y], so [Y1]'s six points during the 9-2 run remained a key factor.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

It happens. As evidenced here.
Names redacted in the following situation:

3-pointer from the top of the key made it a 71-66 game with 2:39 to play. But the [Xs] watched as the [Ys] struck for five straight points in a 30-second span, four by [Y1] and a free throw by [Y2], tying the game at 71-71 with 2:01 on the clock.

[X1] hit a pair of free throws as part of his 14-point fourth quarter, but [Y2] and [Y1] answered right back with back-to-back buckets, finally giving [Team Y] the lead at 75-73 with just over a minute left in the game.

Ironically, the [Ys] should never have owned the lead. [Y1] re-entered the game with 3:02 remaining, but he had committed his fifth foul earlier in the fourth. It wasn't until he picked up his sixth foul that the officials claimed responsibility for the mistake and did not punish [Team Y], so [Y1]'s six points during the 9-2 run remained a key factor.

This part is speculation. Y6 might have performed just as well. Who knows?

[johnnyrao]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

It happens. As evidenced here.
Names redacted in the following situation:

3-pointer from the top of the key made it a 71-66 game with 2:39 to play. But the [Xs] watched as the [Ys] struck for five straight points in a 30-second span, four by [Y1] and a free throw by [Y2], tying the game at 71-71 with 2:01 on the clock.

[X1] hit a pair of free throws as part of his 14-point fourth quarter, but [Y2] and [Y1] answered right back with back-to-back buckets, finally giving [Team Y] the lead at 75-73 with just over a minute left in the game.

Ironically, the [Ys] should never have owned the lead. [Y1] re-entered the game with 3:02 remaining, but he had committed his fifth foul earlier in the fourth. It wasn't until he picked up his sixth foul that the officials claimed responsibility for the mistake and did not punish [Team Y], so [Y1]'s six points during the 9-2 run remained a key factor.

What would lead the officials to think they made a mistake here? I am guessing that when he was assessed his fifth foul earlier in the quarter, the improper procedure was used and the coach and player were not notified? If Y1 fouled out and the coach/player were properly notified, then couldn't the officials assess that the Y Coach was unsportsmanlike by re-entering Y1, knowing he had already committed 5 fouls? I'm confused on this one and would ask for clarification.