Rule reference?

Hmmmmm, while I like the rationale, I'm pretty sure that there's a case play or a FED interpretation that says it's NOT a correctable error. I'll go through the old interps that BillyMac posted sometime this week to see if I can find what I'm thinking of.

Well, seeing you're back on FED rules now.....

2004-05 Basketball Rules Interpretations:
Situation 3: A1 is fouled by B2 and is awarded two free throws. The foul is B2's fifth foul. The new trail official reports the fifth foul to team B's coach. Before a substitute is made the lead official incorrectly permits A1 to to attempt the first free throw. The officials realize the errror and huddle to discuss the situation.
RULING: <font color = red>The result of the first attempt shall stand.</font> Team B's head coach shall be notified of B2's disqualification. Once B2 has been replaced, A1 shall attempt the second free throw. <font color = red>This is an official's error and not a correctable-error situation according to rule 2-10.</font> (2-8-3, 4-4-1, 6-1-2c, 10-5-1d)

Close enough for me. Just extrapolate the logic used to the situation being discussed.

Bookmark this. It's a great aid:
http://forum.officiating.com/basketb...s-archive.html

Nice cite, but it has absolutely nothing to do with shooting FTs out of order. It only addresses a player not being DQ'd properly---it merely says action that occurrs between when they should have DQ'd and when they are actually DQ shall stand. They didn't award an unmerited FT nor did they not award a merited FT.

The difference is that when the ball becomes live for the wrong FT, it becomes a correctable error situation...the deserved FTs were not awarded and the game has progressed.

That's an interesting way to look at it. But what if the mistake is discovered after all 4 free throws have been attempted.

Then there's no way to call it a correctable error, because all the merited free throws were awarded. So if we realize the mistake between the two sets of free throws, it's correctable; but if we realize it after all the free throws it's not? That doesn't seem very plausible to me.

Sticking to NFHS rules.

Team B is in possession of the ball when the error was discovered; A1 shoots his 1-and-1 and then Team B retains possession.

Let's change it up a little by taking away the Technical Foul aspect.

A1 fouled (7th team foul). Officials award spot throw-in. A1 violates on throw-in. B1 gets ball at his disposal for subsequent throw-in. B1 calls a time-out. During time-out it's discovered A1 should have shot 1-and-1.

Are you lining them up or are you going to clear the lane and give the ball back to Team B for a throw-in?

Agree. In the situation being discussed, all merited FT's were awarded. No un-merited FT's were awarded. Nothing else in 2-10 is remotely applicable. It doesn't meet any criteria of a correctable error. And the citations given so far outline generally the direction that the FED wants us to use in situations like this imo.

They can't cover every separate situation in the case book but they can give you general direction. And I feel that they've done that in this case. There's nothing else available in the rules to hang your hat on either that would justify calling it differently.

How about blowing our whistle prior to the incorrect shooter/team releases the 1st FT try? That would kill the officials mistake, no?

I believe there's a procedure to help us eliminate this as well...
I dont know "who" called the T but if we confer PRIOR to heading to the table, then our partner cant administer incorrectly, especially in a 2 person game.
Personally, I like to have the closest non-calling official INTERCEPT the calling official on all Ts/Ints/Flagrants. What do you have & how will we resume play, by rule??

Maybe I was not clear enough in my original post. This was in a mens league. We bend mechanics proceedures. We make it easy on ourselves.
Now I am taking the situation to 'What if' it happened in a high school game.

As stated in several relpys, NFHS proceedure would be after completion of shooting the 'Technical foul' we would shoot the 1 and 1 without lining up the players and have Team B inbound the ball at the division line across from the table resulting from the 'T'.

No, you were crystal in your initial post. All I'm saying is in any game, it would be better to blow the whistle prior to the mistake occuring. I dont care what level I'm working, I want to prevent our mistakes if I can.

I do plenty of mens wreck games as well, and yes, we bend the rules a bit too. Grown men playing by HS rules? One has to know how to manage those games accordingly. Im just saying, I look for opportunities to "step up" in that setting as well. Even if we dont confer, if I'm at the table & my partner is administering FTs in the wrong order. Why not blow my whistle & get it right in preperation for the next sanctioned game?

Not only are you wrong but grunewar has already given you the case play in this thread.

8.7 SITUATION B: B1 fouls A1 just as the first quarter ends and then A1 retaliates and intentionally contacts B1. A1’s foul is a technical foul as it occurred during a dead ball. Team A is in the bonus. The officials by mistake administer the penalty for the technical foul before the free throw(s) by A1.
RULING: The penalties should have been administered in the order in which the fouls occurred. However, since all merited free throws were attempted it does not constitute a correctable error situation. The second quarter will begin with an alternating-possession throw-in. (4-19-5c)

Agree...once all the FTs had been taken. It doesn't not address the situation where the first FTs were skipped and not yet taken....which is a correctable error. They are merited FTs that were not awarded and the ball had been made live for other action. If they are not yet taken, it makes no distinction between skipping them because of getting the order wrong vs. skipping them because they table has the bonus count wrong....they were not taken when merited.

In the out-of-order situation, there is no longer anything to correct once they're taken...so it is no longer a correctable error....but it was until they were taken. Once they're taken, the situation becomes an official's mistake rather than a correctable error.

I understand your premise but I still disagree.

The play itself says, "The officials by mistake administer the penalty for the technical foul before the free throw(s) by A1." That statement does not indicate the foul FTs have already been taken. We all know how screwy some of these plays are worded. If we've shot the T but haven't shot the 1 & 1 yet, I'm not going to make the team re-shoot the technical just so we can say we did it in the correct order, when the case book says it's not an issue as long as all merited FTs are awarded.

While the statement of the play doesn't directly say they have been taken, it can be read that way, and the ruling makes it clear that they were taken by concluding....

since all merited free throws were attempted it does not constitute a correctable error situation

OK. I don't see anyone suggesting otherwise.

If you've not shot merited FTs and have resumed the game by awarding other FTs or awarding a throwin, it becomes a correctable error situation...that is the basic definiation of a correctable error. The ball was put in play (made live) without awarding merited FTs. As a result, you'll shoot them at the time it is discovered that they need to be taken...assuming the time window for correcting the error has not passed. The FTs already taken for another foul of any kind shall stand as well as any other action that had occurred. You resume play whereever you were before taking the FTs....possession OOB as part of the penalty for the T (in this case) or possession OOB for the team that has the ball if the throwin for the T had already occurred.

If it so happens that you realize that they were taken out of order after they've been taken, it WAS a correctable error situation but it has already been corrected....so it is now just a mistake that no longer needs correction.

Oh well...I know what I'm doing if we screw this up. :)

I'm pretty sure I do, too. But let's compare notes. What are you doing?