Messy situation

[Adam]

A bookkeeping error does not include the FTs that were shot. A bookkeeping error led to the T, sure, but the FTs themselves are not a bookkeeping error.

[TimTaylor]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

A bookkeeping error does not include the FTs that were shot. A bookkeeping error led to the T, sure, but the FTs themselves are not a bookkeeping error.

No argument with this, but it begets the question "Were the FTs merited?" If the T was assessed due to a bookkeeping error, logic says that both the T and resulting FTs are unmerited.

It seems to me that since the T was a result of the bookkeeping error, it can be corrected(rescinded) any time until the R approves the final score per 2-11-11. The resulting FT's, on the other hand, would fall into the "unmerited" category and must be corrected within the time constraints specified under 2-10.

Just playing devil's advocate.......

[Adam]

Originally Posted by TimTaylor

No argument with this, but it begets the question "Were the FTs merited?" If the T was assessed due to a bookkeeping error, logic says that both the T and resulting FTs are unmerited.

It seems to me that since the T was a result of the bookkeeping error, it can be corrected(rescinded) any time until the R approves the final score per 2-11-11. The resulting FT's, on the other hand, would fall into the "unmerited" category and must be corrected within the time constraints specified under 2-10.

Just playing devil's advocate.......

Interesting, but the T itself is not a bookkeeping error.

[TimTaylor]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Interesting, but the T itself is not a bookkeeping error.

No, but it is both administrative and the direct result of the bookkeeping error. This is where I believe common sense, rule 2-3 and doing what is right come into play.

It's a good discussion - Might ask our SRI when I see him next......

Just had another crazy thought (and no, I haven't been anywhere near BillyMac's egg nog) - how about a rule change that lets us charge the home book with an administrative T in a situation like this where their error causes a penalty/disadvantage to the opponents....sort of a way to even things up.....

[Adam]

Originally Posted by TimTaylor

No, but it is both administrative and the direct result of the bookkeeping error. This is where I believe common sense, rule 2-3 and doing what is right come into play.

It's a good discussion - Might ask our SRI when I see him next......

Just had another crazy thought (and no, I haven't been anywhere near BillyMac's egg nog) - how about a rule change that lets us charge the home book with an administrative T in a situation like this where their error causes a penalty/disadvantage to the opponents....sort of a way to even things up.....

That might work well in most regular season games, but not when the home school isn't providing the official scorer.

[BillyMac]

In my games, if a technical foul is charged in error, due to a bookkeeping error, then I'm treating the foul shots resulting from that error like any other correctable error time limit, that is, maybe they'll count, and maybe they won't, depending on the statute of limitations for "real" correctable errors. I'll take back the charged foul itself, at any time, after I'm convinced that it was an actual bookkeeping error. Do I have citations for this? No. Just common sense.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

In my games, if a technical foul is charged in error, due to a bookkeeping error, then I'm treating the foul shots resulting from that error like any other correctable error time limit, that is, maybe they'll count, and maybe they won't, depending on the statute of limitations for "real" correctable errors. I'll take back the charged foul itself, at any time, after I'm convinced that it was an actual bookkeeping error. Do I have citations for this? No. Just common sense.

This is what Tim suggested, and the more I think about it, the more it makes sense to me.

Question, though. In the case of an excessive timeout, where the coach has already paid the penalty for the timeout but the book later tells you they were wrong. I see no reason to rescind the T here, as all it does take away a timeout that the coach has already "purchased" with the T penalty.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by TimTaylor

No argument with this, but it begets the question "Were the FTs merited?" If the T was assessed due to a bookkeeping error, logic says that both the T and resulting FTs are unmerited.

It seems to me that since the T was a result of the bookkeeping error, it can be corrected(rescinded) any time until the R approves the final score per 2-11-11. The resulting FT's, on the other hand, would fall into the "unmerited" category and must be corrected within the time constraints specified under 2-10.

Just playing devil's advocate.......

No...many of the correctable errors are often a result of bookkeeping errors. You can always fix the error in the book, but you can't fix the FTs after a time limit.

You can correct the actual bookkeeping error at any time, but you can't correct the ramifications (FT's, T's, etc.) of a bookkeeping error after time limits have expired.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by youngump

If you insist he can't have both (the timeout and the t effects gone), then why not give him the choice. (Though I think you can say that he paid for the timeout with the free throws and lose the rest. Sure it was a cheap timeout but since he didn't get to choose whether to pay ...)

What I'm saying is you can't go back after the 2-10 time frame and take away the free throws, no matter how you slice it.

What if that foul was the team's 6th, and then they only committed one more foul that half, resulting in two made free throws. Do you go back and wipe those FTs off, too?

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

What I'm saying is you can't go back after the 2-10 time frame and take away the free throws, no matter how you slice it.

I think we all agreed with that, didn't we? In the OP, it was within the time limit. Mistake was discovered, T was erased, free throws are now unmerited. Take them off the board and resume at POI. This work for you?

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by just another ref

I think we all agreed with that, didn't we? In the OP, it was within the time limit. Mistake was discovered, T was erased, free throws are now unmerited. Take them off the board and resume at POI. This work for you?

Works for me...they were unmerited free throws due to a bookkeeping error. The time frame requirements are met - take the points off the board, erase the T, and play on.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by just another ref

I think we all agreed with that, didn't we? In the OP, it was within the time limit. Mistake was discovered, T was erased, free throws are now unmerited. Take them off the board and resume at POI. This work for you?

At this point I'm not sure what we've all agreed on. The argument seemed to be that since it's a "bookkeeping error," it can be corrected (the whole thing) at any time. I'd like to see an interp on this particular issue to be honest.

[Judtech]

I'll stir the pudding. The argument could also be that we JUDGED it to be a bookkeeping error. After we render our judgement, unless covered by the CE section, that judgement is final. Same as any other foul or violation. Again, just b/c we recieve other information doesnt affect anything. If I am doing a game and I call a foul but see on the video screen it was clearly NOT a foul, am I going to take it back?
Still, if we take time to sort through it at the table before issuing any T, it would go along way to eliminating this problem.

[TimTaylor]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

No...many of the correctable errors are often a result of bookkeeping errors. You can always fix the error in the book, but you can't fix the FTs after a time limit.

I thought that's what I said........

You can correct the actual bookkeeping error at any time, but you can't correct the ramifications (FT's, T's, etc.) of a bookkeeping error after time limits have expired.

Here is where I disagree. The only ramification you can't correct after a certain time limit by specific rule are the FTs. If the only penalty of the T was the FTs, I wouldn't have a problem with it. The problem is the unwarranted T also counts as a team foul towards the bonus, and therefore continues to unfairly and unjustly penalize that team for the rest of that half through no fault of their own. No matter how you try to cut it, this is not in the spirit of fair play. Common sense says rescind the unwarranted administrative T and remove the foul from the team foul count. The rule book doesn't cover every eventuality - sometimes you just need to step up and do the right thing.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by TimTaylor

I thought that's what I said........



Here is where I disagree. The only ramification you can't correct after a certain time limit by specific rule are the FTs. If the only penalty of the T was the FTs, I wouldn't have a problem with it. The problem is the unwarranted T also counts as a team foul towards the bonus, and therefore continues to unfairly and unjustly penalize that team for the rest of that half through no fault of their own. No matter how you try to cut it, this is not in the spirit of fair play. Common sense says rescind the unwarranted administrative T and remove the foul from the team foul count. The rule book doesn't cover every eventuality - sometimes you just need to step up and do the right thing.

What about excess timeouts? remove the T and still let him keep the extra timeout? The bulk of the punishment can't be rescinded even by your reasoning.