Ok, I read Snagwells original post as if the arrow was incorrectly pointing towards A (and they were incorrectly given the ball) when it should have been pointing toward B.

The point is A was given an AP throw in by mistake.

Yep, whether it's b/c the official screwed up or the table screwed up is inconsequential to the scenario.

I'm going to disagree here by applying the same logic of 2-10-4: ...and the activity during it, other than unsporting, flagrant, intentional or technical fouls, shall be canceled.


So I would not give B a DOG warning nor would I charge A2 the foul in the other scenario you gave.

But would you give them the technical if they already had the DOG warning?

No, b/c I'm ignoring the activity, in this case breaking the plane. I know it's a grey area but that's how I would go.

I understand the logic behind not charging the DOG. You can't truly break the plane when it was your throw-in to begin with.

But, I don't see how that extends to fouls. A foul is a foul. Charge it, and give the rightful team the ball, while you still have the chance.

Like I said, I'm using the same logic found in 2-10-4 for a CE. Am I right for doing so? Maybe, maybe not. But it does show there is precedent for ignoring certain activity when correcting an officiating mistake.

You're right, it's a gray area. Not sure I could go that far, but I see the logic behind it. I wouldn't be surprised if, some day, they decide that these situations are too late to fix.

The rules are quite clear about what's a correctable error and what isn't. Throw-in errors aren't, nor are the activity that go with them. As much as we would like to extend this logic to other areas of the rules, we're simply not allowed to do so.

Here's a thought. Would you penalize a technical foul while the wrong team has the ball at their disposal on a throw-in? I'm confident all of us would. (It would also clear up the who-gets-the-ball-now discussion, too.)

Which is why I didn't include a technical foul in the scenarios. BNR's reference specifically excludes technical fouls from what can be ignored.

Personally, I'm not ignoring anything (2-10-5 backs me up just as much as 2-10-4 backs up BNR), because I think 2-10-4 is meant solely for the situations mentioned. But as has been said before, the rules aren't written to cover every possible scenario; sometimes you just have to officiate.

I would call any T not related to the defense breaking the plane or touching the ball. ;)

I didn't say this was a correctable error, I just said I would use some of the same logic when adjudicating the play. Also, I never said my opinion was backed by a rule. But the rule or case book does not directly address these variables.

Which is why sometimes it does matter who the R is. :)

The reason I go with the 2-10-4 logic is b/c it discusses activity during the incorrect act. If we recognize the error in time to correct it then basically we've had no play. So I'm not penalizing either team for any basketball activity that falls below the line of unsporting, flagrant, or intentional.