Inbounds Play Deflection
 

BV with a couple of minutes to go in quarter 2, A1 driving for layup in open court, B1 jumps with him, ball goes in the basket and both players' momentum carries them off of the court.

B1 grabs the ball quickly and passes straight up court to a waiting B2. A1, after the lay-in quickly scrambles to get back on the court. After B1 releases the throw-in pass, A1 contacts the ball and deflects it on to the court.

My partner, Lead then new Trail calls a violation on the throw-in, saying B1 was out-of-bounds and that we have a Delay of Game warning Team A. I'm C on during all action. I go to my partner and ask if B1 had released the ball when it was touched. He says yes and we move on.

At halftime we talk about it. We both agree that B1 had not established inbounds, but that he touched the ball after it was released and that when contacted the ball was on the inbounds side of the end line. We agree it should have been simply an out of bounds violation.

When we return in to start the 3rd period, we inform both coaches no DOG violation and have it 'struck from the record'. Both coaches have nothing to say. Thoughts on our 'creativity' here?

How does the inbounding team end up with a DOG?

They charged the DOG to Team A...not Team B

Figured as much but the wording of the whole thing is a bit confusing.

This Rule Is Being Discussed ...
 

7-6-4: The opponent(s) of the thrower shall not have any part of his/her
person through the inbounds side of the throw-in boundary plane until the ball
has been released on a throw-in pass.

Right.
 

In this case the two players are basically moving in tandem, parallel to each other. A1 is moving to get back on the court as B1 gathers the ball and passes in. On the release they are both OOB, A1 (the defender) touches the throw-in pass after release, but before he establishes himself inbounds. As an addendum, the play was more of an athletic extension forward dive, like a player would make saving a ball from OOB or back court, but it originates from OOB.

Is DOG a correctable error?

The five correctable errors are listed in 2-10

Guess that was my point.

I'm still confused, then. The OP didn't treat it as a CE.

A CE is a particular error that must be corrected within a specific period of time. An error does not have to be a CE in order to be corrected.

I think that's what confuses some people. If an error is not a "correctable error," they infer that the error is not correctable.

CE's are not even the only error that has an explicit time frame for correction: think about giving the ball to the wrong team for a throw-in.

+1

As I often explain it, "It's an error, and it is correctable, but it's not a Correctable Error." (caps intentional)

That is true. My point (though inadequately made) was that CEs are a specific set of errors that have a specific time frame in which they must be corrected.

Is correcting this error something we should be doing though? Some errors should be corrected if discovered later, e.g. a foul charged to the wrong player or a 3 counted as a 2 or vice versa. Some errors shouldn't be corrected if discovered later, e.g. a foul which wasn't a foul or a violation that wasn't a violation. Although, I sympathize with wanting to treat this as the former, it feels more like the latter to me.