NCAA-W, correctable or not?

[jearef]

Originally Posted by mbyron

It is a correctable error. Proceeding to the 1-and-1 as if the T never happened constitutes failure to award merited free throws for the T.

Is there any casebook support for this, either at the college or HS level? I know we are essentially talking semantics, as I agree with the remedy suggested. I just don't see "shooting free throws in the wrong order" as equivalent to "failure to award a merited free throw". Again, not sure it really matters. Just wondering what you think.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by jearef

Is there any casebook support for this, either at the college or HS level? I know we are essentially talking semantics, as I agree with the remedy suggested. I just don't see "shooting free throws in the wrong order" as equivalent to "failure to award a merited free throw". Again, not sure it really matters. Just wondering what you think.

At the time the 1-1 was shot, then the FTs for the T were missed -- so at that time, it was a CE.

By the time this all finished, they had corrected the error, so there was no more CE.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by jearef

Is there any casebook support for this, either at the college or HS level? I know we are essentially talking semantics, as I agree with the remedy suggested. I just don't see "shooting free throws in the wrong order" as equivalent to "failure to award a merited free throw". Again, not sure it really matters. Just wondering what you think.

Of course they're not equivalent. The point is that the game went on without awarding merited free throws. You can erroneously skip free throws and do almost anything: free throws for some other foul, a throw-in, an AP throw-in, end a period, etc.

For NFHS look at 2.10.1 situations. You'll see that failure to award merited free throws happens when play goes on in some manner other than awarding the merited free throws. What else would constitute "failure to award merited free throws?" It's an omission.

I'm a little puzzled about why people have trouble understanding this point.

[Scrapper1]

I seem to remember an AR that came from the women's side, and I think it went something like this:

B1 fouls A1 and Team A is in the bonus. It is B1's 5th foul. Coach B is notified of the disqualification and the notifying official is waiting for B1's sub. For whatever reason, the other official administers the first free throw of the 1-and-1 before the substitution is complete.

I believe that the ruling was to wipe out the first free throw, complete the substitution and re-administer the 1-and-1. Does anybody remember that ruling (keeping in mind that it came from the women's side only)? And if so, does anybody think that ruling might have some bearing on my original play?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

I seem to remember an AR that came from the women's side, and I think it went something like this:

B1 fouls A1 and Team A is in the bonus. It is B1's 5th foul. Coach B is notified of the disqualification and the notifying official is waiting for B1's sub. For whatever reason, the other official administers the first free throw of the 1-and-1 before the substitution is complete.

I believe that the ruling was to wipe out the first free throw, complete the substitution and re-administer the 1-and-1. Does anybody remember that ruling (keeping in mind that it came from the women's side only)? And if so, does anybody think that ruling might have some bearing on my original play?

Yes.

No.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Yes.

Ok, glad I wasn't imaging things.

No.

Why not? It's a case where there is no correctable error, yet the free throw is wiped out and there's a "do-over".

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

Ok, glad I wasn't imaging things.


Why not? It's a case where there is no correctable error, yet the free throw is wiped out and there's a "do-over".

When the first FT for the 1-1 is shot, we've (well, they've) failed to award the merited FTs for the T. It's a CE right there. It's discovered, and corrected, by have the FTs for the T shot.

In the ruling, merited FTs were shot, but were "ignored" because of the DQd player. I dont' see them as similar at all. Maybe I'm mis-reading the play.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

When the first FT for the 1-1 is shot, we've (well, they've) failed to award the merited FTs for the T. It's a CE right there.

That makes sense.

In the ruling, merited FTs were shot, but were "ignored" because of the DQd player.

Maybe in the ruling, they're saying the ball never became live because the required substitution never occurred?

[jearef]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Of course they're not equivalent. The point is that the game went on without awarding merited free throws. You can erroneously skip free throws and do almost anything: free throws for some other foul, a throw-in, an AP throw-in, end a period, etc.

For NFHS look at 2.10.1 situations. You'll see that failure to award merited free throws happens when play goes on in some manner other than awarding the merited free throws. What else would constitute "failure to award merited free throws?" It's an omission.

I'm a little puzzled about why people have trouble understanding this point.

I think it's because when we think of failing to award merited free throws, most people think of a situation where we miss the fact that a team is in the bonus and award a throw-in instead. When they have in their mind that Team A is entitled to a free throw, and they simply don't award it in the correct order, some folks don't see that as a failure to award. I understand the argument, however, and I agree. Whenever we continue the game (whether by throw-in, free throw, or whatever) without having awarded free throws that were merited, we have a CE. I get it.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by jearef

I get it.

Excellent!