Not a good comparison. When you first heard of the free throw error, it was already too late to correct. That would be the same as the coach saying, "Hey, they had six on the floor last possession. Number 10 just sat down while you weren't looking."

Ok, so you ARE agreeing with me that there are times when it's too late to penalize, right? That's my whole point. It doesn't matter when the coach tells you, it's when the rules say as to whether it's too late. In my example, maybe the coach tells you at the right time they should shoot one more FT, but for some reason you don't believe them, or you're busy watching 2 knuckleheads bumping, and it doesn't register with you until it's too late. Well, it's too late. You could call it an official's error for waiting too long for the information to sink in, but it's still too late. Same as in the 6 participating - it's the official's error for blowing the whistle to stop players from participating, but when they do, it's too late to penalize.

There are lots of places in the rules where it seems like "common sense" or "fairness" would dictate we should be able to do something different. However, the rules are relatively clear on how we handle specific instances, even if it goes against what we think would be fair or right. (Hmm...I'm trying to think of something else where that applies...what is it?... ;) )

This is not a question of what is too late. It is a question of whether hearing the words of the coach, which did happen at an acceptable time, would qualify as the actual discovery. I know it is not ideal, but in this case I say yes.

And you seem to be alone.

If the coach tells you about a CE just before a layup that causes the first dead ball, and you don't register and blow your whistle until the ensuing throw-in is completed, are you going to go back and correct the CE?

No because then it would be too late. Again, too late is not the issue here. The call occurred in the accepted time frame.

Okay, i see what you're saying, but the fact remains, the coach telling you something is not sufficient to claim "discovered while being violated."

Coach miscounts, tells you 6 are out there. You blow your whistle and start counting; meanwhile, B6 (a sub waiting to come in) stands up and starts talking to B1. At this point, it's impossible to tell if B6 had been participating or not, you don't remember seeing him check in, and it sure looks like he's on the court now.

Gee, coach told you there were six, now you count six. Call the T, right?

There's a reason we're told we have to discover it "while being violated." You've got rule backing to declare it too late. You don't have rule backing to penalize if you count 6 while the ball is dead and the clock is stopped.

We can twist the play all day. What if you count 6 and your own count turns out to be wrong. What I'm saying is if I hear "six on the court" and instinctively (too quickly) blow the whistle, and then can quickly make a count which verifies the infraction to my satisfaction, I would stick with the call. If you think this is unethical, I respect your opinion, but I disagree.
I think this is not totally unlike a play we have discussed before. A1 throws a bad pass, which is headed out of bounds. Official sounds the whistle before the ball hits the wall. Do you give the ball back to A? I don't.

My point is, the rule is there for a reason. If you don't like it, and feel comfortable stepping outside it on a call like this, fine, but don't pretend you have rules backing. No matter what sort of logical gymnastics you're able to perform, you simply don't have rules backing on that.

I wouldn't consider it "unethical" unless you were to claim later, after being challenged (or to prevent such a challenge), that you had counted the players during live ball rather than after you blew your whistle.