Can it be corrected administratively???
 

Team B has already received a delay of game warning earlier in the game. B1 has four fouls. Following a basket by Team B, Team A attempts a throw-in vs. Team B''s full court pressure with about 4 minutes remaining in the game. B1 -- who is Team B's leading scorer -- reaches through the plane while A1 is holding the ball for the throw-in, but does not touch the ball. The official recognizes the situation. Knowing that Team B has already received a delay of game warning, the official immediately assesses a technical foul.

However, rather than assessing a team technical foul, the official calls a technical foul on B1 -- which is B1's fifth foul resulting in a player disqualification. The official's partners wrongly assume that the calling official had observed the defending player make contact with the ball, therefore, they do not question the official at the time. The teams trade baskets over the next two minutes before Team A calls time-out.

The officials briefly gather near midcourt at the beginning of the time-out. During the brief discussion, the officials talk about the technical foul. At that point the officials realize that the technical foul should have been assessed as a team technical rather than against B1 individually.

Now the officials are faced with a decision. Can they correct a bookkeeping error and allow Team B's leading scorer to return? It is not a correctable error, but can this type of administrative error be corrected? Or is this error uncorrectable once play has resumed?

By rule, it's not a bookkeeping error. It's an official's error. The official erred in assessing the technical foul to B1 instead of to the team.

While I agree with the comment above, I see no reason to continue to enforce the incorrect penalty and would make the change to a team technical foul and allow B1 to participate further in the contest.

Also, this kind of irregularity would most likely warrant a phone call to the assignor and/or a report to the governing authority whether that be the league or state association. Team B may have grounds to protest the game, not per NFHS rules, but perhaps per the league or state.

The bottom line is to not make the situation worse once one has knowledge that the assessed penalty is incorrect. Do what you can to address it.

I don't think you have the rules backing to do that, Nevada, after the ball became live again. I agree philosophically but our personal feelings really don't mean squat. It's not a case of a bookkeeping error as listed under 2-11-11; it's an inadvertant setting aside of a rule by the calling official. Note that case book play 2.11.10SitB uses that terminology in it's RULING. You're not correcting an incorrect penalty; you're trying to correct a wrong call instead...after the fact. It's no different than making any wrong call and then trying to go back later and change that call. If you ask your partners at the half about a foul call that you made in the first quarter, and they tell you it was a horsesh!t call, are you going to go back and change it? And we already know we can't have a do-over if we give the wrong team the ball on a throw-in that has ended or other situations like that.

Methinks you just have to suck it up, admit your mistake, let the chips fall where they may and move on.

Thoughts?

+1

What I'm about to say in support of JR is for general consumption and not directed to any poster in particular.

Officials are human and make mistakes. The rules specify a time frame for correcting mistakes in order to have a fair procedure for all and to keep the game moving. (Actually, several time frames: one for throw-ins, one for "correctable errors," etc.)

The time frame is brief, which is an argument for getting the call right in the first place. We just don't have much time to fix it when we screw it up. If despite our best efforts we screw up and a player fouls out, well, those are the breaks. The player won't remember it in 5 days, much less 5 years.

What's worse is arbitrarily setting aside the rules because an individual official's sense of "fairness" is violated. That's usually what's going on when 2-3 is invoked: "I don't like this outcome, so I'm going to set aside the rules that dictate this outcome and deliver an outcome that I like better." That says the official is bigger than the game. And that's a route to a career doing MS games.

Interesting, I proposed a scenario before and got a similar answer from others that Nevada has given here.

Scrum, foul called and reported on White 24 when it should have been on Red 24. Ball given to white (confused young official). It's white 24's fifth foul. A couple minutes progress and the official, knowing something was wrong with that whole scenario, finally realizes what happened.

Assuming it's past the 2-10 time frame, can he fix this?

Assuming it's not past the 2-10 limit, can he fix it?

The answer I got was, basically, "get it right."

The 2-10 time frame has nothing to do with it.

As I said in my initial reply, by rule, it can't be changed.

If you make this mistake and decide to make it right, that's on you...your choice. Just answering from a rules standpoint that it's not correctable.

While I think that JR has a point, I don't believe that the call--which was a technical foul--was incorrect, it was simply that to whom the calling official charged that penalty was wrong.

What if I changed the situation to the official incorrectly charging a foul to 32 instead of 33 during the 4th quarter for whatever reason, perhaps he doesn't clearly see the number (perhaps 32 isn't even in the game at the time), and then two minutes later when 32 fouls again the official is informed that it is his fifth foul? If it can be proven that 32 didn't commit the first foul, maybe due to the scorer having a record of who was in the game at the time, is anyone going to insist that he remain stuck with it?
Or in this particular case, once it is realized that 32 was mistakenly charged with a personal foul which he shouldn't have been are people still going to DQ him?

To me, in both cases, it is not the actual foul call which is wrong as a rules infraction was committed and recognized by an official, but the assessment of that penalty was improper in that it was charged to the wrong offender.

While we certainly can't erase FTs, points, or a possession after a certain time period, I believe that we can correct the recipient of a foul once we have definite knowledge that it was incorrectly attached to a person. Some may cringe at this, but I believe that is a simple principle of basic fairness and while it could fall under 2-3 or the whole process of bookkeeping, I would offer that the rules support is more basic. The rules tell us very clearly to whom a foul gets charged. As officials we have a duty to adhere to that. If we screw up and don't, then I believe that we must do what we can under the rules address our mistake. Exactly what is allowable in this area is obviously up for debate, but I'm not going to knowingly DQ a player who should rightly be eligible to participate.

mb,
Let's say in my hypothetical situation that this had been an OHSAA State Final Game --likely to be remembered for more than five days. By book rule, there appears to be little that can be done, here. It is NOT one of the five correctable scoring errors (nor is it a throw-in team "error").

This, in my opinion, comes down to how will the officials handle it. REGARDLESS what is done, the officials have screwed the pooch with the initial call. The question is, are you, as an official, going to attempt to get creative and right your wrong or do you follow the rules from here on out (since obviously you failed to follow them when you assessed the individual technical foul). It is a stretch to call this a "bookkeeping" mistake as it was actually an official's mistake.

Since there are no protests permitted in OHSAA tournament play, the official's error here could likely play a major role in determining the State Champion.

The question here, can the officials get the player rightfully back into the game and follow the rules -- at least not break any of them -- at the same time.

Not under any rule that I am aware of.

Never call what you can't explain....or justify.

Coach A fails to list B32 on his roster. 2 minutes into the game B32 commits a foul. It is now discovered that B32 is not in the book. B32 is added and the officials assess an "indirect" technical against the HC and revoke his privilege to stand in the coaching box. At halftime the officials check the rulebook and realize they erred in assessing an "indirect" against the HC.

The officials are committed to the "indirect" and can't correct it?

What rule would you use to correct it?

If I'm the "R" I'm going to make it right and then take whatever heat comes my way from the assignor, rules backing or not.

"Sometimes you just have to referee!" -someone on this board

Not sure if anyone intercepted the calling official prior to reporting in the OP, if not, this is one of the many reasons why we should come together first & talk it out.

"And sometimes you have to referee by the rules"- me

"And that why officiating is an art as well as being a science"- me also.

In other words, if you got the rule right in the first place, you wouldn't have this mess. This is why these rules are pounded into our heads.

Still, I know people that would want this situation "fixed" and reversed, under the battle cry of "common sense."

As a newbie I feel this is very important . especially as we're learning communication with partner(s). You experienced guys and gals can communicate a lot with subtle looks and gestures etc that I don't yet pick up on , as well as partner to partner signals. And learning/trying to use proper mechanics . It's all part of the "don't rush" advice I've recieved here in previous threads , I need (and mostly have been getting) a few extra seconds sometimes on "normal " plays and procedures , more so on more complicated and important calls . If us newbies forget or mess up a mechanic , our partners don't know what's going on either! ( 2 shots or not, shot counts or not, spot of throw in, who's the foul on,warnings that were supposed to have been issued ...) I also had charged a t to a player instead of the team, knowing the throw in/plane violation rule, but messing it up anyway.This time it didn't result in a dq, but could have. Whats automatic with you , I may need to confirm or be corrected on. Then we won't need to "undo it" later in the game :) Maybe even the old heads need to take as much time as necessary to get it right.

You Can Look It Up ...
 

True. It's in "Bartlett's Familiar Quotations". They're in the chapter entitled "Quotes From Hell".

In the OP, B1 has a foul recorded in the book which he did not commit. I consider this a bookkeeping error, regardless of what caused it. Now B1 no longer has 5 fouls. No reason he can't play. JMO

Look at it this way
 

What if it happened like this : The mistake came just before half time. The incorrect T given to B1 became his 3rd total foul. At halftime we discuss and realize our mistake. When returning to the court would you have the scorer correct our mistake in this situation? If so, then why not near the end of the second half?

I believe that once something is taken to the table, that is that.
Unless of course, you report the correct info & the table takes it down wrong. That would be a bookkeeping error.

An official reporting a player technical that is really a team technical is an officials error & not a correctable one... by rule.

If we follow procedures, we minimize the chance of officials errors in those situations. IJS

Similar situation
 

This play actually happened this year: A couple minutes before halftime a held ball occurred. The arrow>Team A. A's endline throw-in by their own basket was kicked by B. The scorer asked the tableside trail if the arrow should be switched. The official incorrectly answered yes. The arrow was switched >B and noted in the scorebook. The other officials didn't realize the mistake at the time but during halftime they recognized the mistake. Before the 2nd half started the referee explained the error to both coaches and had the arrow reversed >A to start the half. Would you do the same thing as the referee or leave the arrow >B knowing full well the arrow was wrong?

Yes, and what happened to Billy Mac?

The official said "Technical foul, blue #1."

The scorer records the T on blue #1.

That is NOT a bookkeeping error.

It's an official's error.

+1

tref,

I'm not really singling out your post. It only looks like I am. :)

I don't buy that "once something is taken to the table, that is that". Every one of us has goofed up and reported a foul on White 32 when it was actually committed by White 23. Normally within a couple of seconds the scorekeeper or coach brings it to our attention. When that happens, do we stick to our guns? Even if there isn't a White 32? Of course not. We figure out who actually committed the foul, and report it correctly. And if it's two plays later before the mistake is recognized, we still correct it, if we're able to.

Why?

Because we made the right call; we just screwed up the reporting. Whether the scorekeeper incorrectly records what the official correctly reported, or the official incorrectly reports what he correctly called, a mistake in "record[ing] the personal and technical fouls" is a bookkeeping mistake. And a bookkeeping mistake can be corrected any time until the referee approves the final score. Assuming, of course, you have the correct information.

The OP, of course, is quite a different situation. But I am unconvinced that "by rule" it cannot be corrected. I simply cannot find any rule that says that if it is discovered that a player has erroneously been disqualified, that he shall remain disqualified. However, I find a compelling parallel in the opposite case: a player who has erroneously been allowed to remain in the game after committing his fifth foul. There is no window of opportunity for fixing this. When discovered, you simply remove the player from the game. No attempt is made to undo any result of his having remained in the game. To me, that is a much more relevant rule to extrapolate from than the awarding of a throw-in to the wrong team.

I'm with Nevada on this. When you realize the player was erroneously disqualified, let him back in the game. You were wrong once. Do you really need to continue being wrong?

What would the ball becoming live again have to do with it?

Nothing. Should have said live ball and the clock starting.

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?

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.

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.

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).
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.

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.

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.

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

Some guidance from the NCAA
 

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)

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.