Can it be corrected administratively???

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by just another ref

OK. What does that have to do with it?

Same general philosophy as an AP throw-in. If you give the ball to the wrong team, you can't correct it after the ball is live and the clock has re-started.

Comprendre?

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Same general philosophy as an AP throw-in. If you give the ball to the wrong team, you can't correct it after the ball is live and the clock has re-started.

Comprendre?

Si.

But this has nothing to do with that, by rule. Just as it is not a 2-10 correctable error, by rule. I think it is easier to say we have a bookkeeping error than to apply either of these.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by just another ref

I think it is easier to say we have a bookkeeping error than to apply either of these.

It might be easier but is it correct when it's really an official's error rather than a bookkeeping error?

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

It might be easier but is it correct when it's really an official's error rather than a bookkeeping error?

I'm looking at the result of the official's error. Blue 32 and white 32 are involved in a play. Official signals a foul on white 32. On the way to the table he gets confused and reports it on blue 32. White 32 starts to the free throw line and the official realizes his mistake. Official made a mistake, not the scorer, but the result is still a bookkeeping error. Why is this different? Technical foul was called, correctly so. Offended team got free throws and the ball, correctly so. The only problem is that the foul was attached incorrectly, just as it was in the above example. I see no reason why this cannot be corrected.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Official made a mistake, not the scorer, but the result is still a bookkeeping error. Why is this different?

Not the same. A bookkeeping error is when the book records something different than what is reported. An official's mistake is something the official reported incorrectly, administered incorrectly, or called incorrectly (and is not a correctable error).

Originally Posted by just another ref

Technical foul was called, correctly so. Offended team got free throws and the ball, correctly so. The only problem is that the foul was attached incorrectly, just as it was in the above example. I see no reason why this cannot be corrected.

Regarding the OP....I'd fix this at any time. It is a matter of who the foul was attributed to. You're not uncalling a foul, you're not canceling the FTs/points/etc. You're merely correcting the where the foul is recorded in the book even though the situation was caused by the official indicating that the foul was on B1....and letting the player back in the game since they're not really DQ'd.

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Not the same. A bookkeeping error is when the book records something different than what is reported. An official's mistake is something the official reported incorrectly, administered incorrectly, or called incorrectly (and is not a correctable error).

Strictly in the context of the official incorrectly reporting who he called a foul on, I disagree with your statement. The rule uses the generic term "bookkeeping mistake" when, had they meant to restrict the scope of the rule to only mistakes made by the scorer, they could have done so by calling it a "scorer's mistake".

And with good reason. In practice, the requirement for the scorer to "record the personal and technical fouls" requires the combined and cooperative efforts of both the scorer and the official. If either one messes up during this process, the result is a mistake in the keeping of the book.

So why would only the scorer's bookkeeping mistakes be correctable?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

Strictly in the context of the official incorrectly reporting who he called a foul on, I disagree with your statement. The rule uses the generic term "bookkeeping mistake" when, had they meant to restrict the scope of the rule to only mistakes made by the scorer, they could have done so by calling it a "scorer's mistake".

And with good reason. In practice, the requirement for the scorer to "record the personal and technical fouls" requires the combined and cooperative efforts of both the scorer and the official. If either one messes up during this process, the result is a mistake in the keeping of the book.

So why would only the scorer's bookkeeping mistakes be correctable?

Because they differentiate in the rules between a mistake in record keeping ( a scorer's mistake) and the inadvertant setting aside of a rule(an official's mistake). See the language used in the RULING of case book play 2.11.10SitB.

If you have jumpers facing the wrong way and you put the ball into play, you can't have a do-over as per case book play 5.2.1. That's because the officials inadvertantly set aside a rule(aka screwed up). If you also screw up an AP and give the ball to the wrong team, you again can't go back and have a do-over after that AP throw-in ended as per case book play 6.4.1SitD. These are both examples of an official inadvertantly setting aside a rule. And in both cases the scorer did not make an error of any kind. And in the OP, the official wrongfully charged a technical foul for the DOG to the player instead of that player's team. That official also inadvertantly set aside a rule and the scorer did not make a mistake. The scorer entered onto the scoresheet exactly what the official told him to enter.

That's the difference between an official's mistake and a scorer's mistake by rule.

[CMHCoachNRef]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Because they differentiate in the rules between a mistake in record keeping ( a scorer's mistake) and the inadvertant setting aside of a rule(an official's mistake). See the language used in the RULING of case book play 2.11.10SitB.

If you have jumpers facing the wrong way and you put the ball into play, you can't have a do-over as per case book play 5.2.1. That's because the officials inadvertantly set aside a rule(aka screwed up). If you also screw up an AP and give the ball to the wrong team, you again can't go back and have a do-over after that AP throw-in ended as per case book play 6.4.1SitD. These are both examples of an official inadvertantly setting aside a rule. And in both cases the scorer did not make an error of any kind. And in the OP, the official wrongfully charged a technical foul for the DOG to the player instead of that player's team. That official also inadvertantly set aside a rule and the scorer did not make a mistake. The scorer entered onto the scoresheet exactly what the official told him to enter.

That's the difference between an official's mistake and a scorer's mistake by rule.

In the name of fairness, I hate this position. But, JR is correct in this case per my NFHS Rules contact. I really wish we could "fix" this type of mistake. unfortunately, we really cannot.

At the same time, I could understand Cam's idea of bringing the player back onto the court. In the name of fairness, I like the option. As an official on this crew, you are in trouble in any case for the first error. Compounding it with another error may get you in deeper trouble. Then again, once the water gets over your nose, it really doesn't matter a great deal how much higher the water gets.

The option that is most fair is sometimes NOT supported by rule -- in fact, can be prohibited.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by CMHCoachNRef

The option that is most fair is sometimes NOT supported by rule -- in fact, can be prohibited.

You can make the argument that this correction is not supported by rule, but it is definitely not prohibited.

[BayStateRef]

The NCAA-W has a recent ruling on a similar situation that may be instructive of the mindset of the rules makers. Officials are allowed to use a TV replay (if available) to see if a foul is flagrant. But they must use the monitor before they report the foul. If they report the foul as flagrant and the replay shows it was not (because contact with the elbow was below the shoulders), it is too late to change it.

As much as we may want to insert our version of "fair," we need to have solid support under the rules to do it. I don't see any rule that allows us to unring this bell.

The case play:

A. Monitor: reported intentional personal foul (2-13.2.d)
Play 1: An official reports an intentional personal foul on A1 for illegal contact above the shoulders of an opponent. The opposing coach asks the officials to go to the monitor to determine if the foul was flagrant. The official chooses to review the monitor to see if a flagrant foul occurred on the play and upon review sees that the illegal contact was actually made below the shoulders. Is the official permitted to change the intentional personal foul that has been reported to a common foul?
Ruling 1: No.While the officials are permitted to review the monitor to see if a flagrant foul occurred, Rule 2-13.2.d states that when it is determined that a flagrant foul did not occur but an intentional personal or a player/substitute technical foul for dead ball contact foul did occur, those fouls can be penalized, but no other infractions may be penalized. When the official reports an intentional personal foul, that foul cannot be downgraded to a common foul. (Rule 2-13.2.d)

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Because they differentiate in the rules between a mistake in record keeping ( a scorer's mistake) and the inadvertant setting aside of a rule(an official's mistake). See the language used in the RULING of case book play 2.11.10SitB.

Interesting. Rule 2-11-10 deals with the scorer signaling the nearest official on the 7th and 10th team fouls.


But casebook 2.11.10B deals with an error made in recording the score.

A bookkeeping error in the section which deals with bookkeeping errors.