Understanding correctable errors

[Hawks Coach]

Vitale will be too busy ripping the AP arrow to deal with the correctable error situation.

Then again, if we score, call TO and then get the FTs, he might say, "That's just wrong. These kids on B work so hard then the officials make a mistake like this. B's Coach is doing a great job getting his PTPers ready to go and then the officials make a mistake like this - that's just flatout wrong! Just like that arrow - I hate that rule too."

[Mregor]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Hawks Coach
[B][QUOTE]Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
[B]

Originally posted by Hawks Coach
The clock starts when A inbounds, and then when A scores, we are in a correctable error situation until B has ball at disposal. At that point, ball is once again live and you can't correct anything.


I agree with Camron, that possession changes on the made shot. The ball is dead until at disposal, but so is the ball when it goes OOB off A, and yet in both cases we know that B gets the ball - that qualifies as change of possession for me. I would shoot the FTs with the lane empty then go to POI in both of these situations.

Unfortunately, there is no rule support for that. However, after re-reading the original post, it does now make sense to me and it would be a correctable error. Only difference is that I would continue with the lane occupied vs. an empty lane and awarding the ball to B.

Mregor

[Hawks Coach]

Where is there a rule that defines "change of possession." I have defined it as when a team is entitled to the ball. What in the rules states that this definition is incorrect? GO ahead and search for an unambiuous definition of this term in the rules - it doesn't exist. so you must interpret and deal with the intent of the correctable error rule in the first place.

You may choose to define change of possession differently and may have logic to support it, but I have yet to see why you would want to define it differently. Think about the spirit of the rule and if my definition of "change of possession" meets that sprit of the rule. Then look at the 3-pointer situation I outlined and ask yourself if that is what the people who wrote this rule would have wanted to occur when correcting an error of not awarding a merited FT. I think that the answer becomes much easier then.