Well, It Finally Happened ...
 

And were we embarrassed. We gave the ball to the wrong team after a timeout.

Thank God it was only a Catholic Middle School junior varsity game, and it didn't affect the final score, but it was still embarrassing. In hindsight, this is what happened.

There were a couple of out of bounds calls in a short succession along my partner's endline, and all the players stayed down there due to good backcourt defensive pressure. Ball goes out of bounds off of Visitor, and during the ensuing dead ball, one of the coaches requests and is granted a timeout. My partner, a pretty good official, has been on this endline during this entire succession of plays, sounds his whistle to grant the request. He looks at me, expecting to "bump the timeout" to me, because I'm closest to the table, poor mechanics, I know, but "accepted" in this league, I don't know who requested the timeout, so I motion to him to report the timeout, which he does, and he then goes back to his endline.

That little hesitation in the "bump" routine, or in this case, the "non-bump" routine, lost the focus for both of us. I'm at the circle during the timeout, and he's at his endline. After the timeout, he calls out, "Visitor ball", points, and hands the ball to the Visitor for a throwin. Visitor completes the throwin, after which the ball goes out of bounds off Home.

At this point, the Home coach questions the throwin after the time out. I confer with my partner, the Home coach is correct, we screwed up, and I mean we, as in both of us, I'm taking half the blame. I apologize to the Home coach, which he seems to accept, but then he gets a little upset that we will not be giving the ball to the Home team. "Coach, I'm sorry that we blew it, but it's not a correctable error. There's nothing in the rulebook that allows us to fix this. I'm not fixing a mistake by making another mistake", and we play on, with a throwin by Visitor.

Our former local interpreter used to say, "When the ball is dead, we must be alive". He always warned us about this situation, and advised us to communicate information with our partners during timeouts, and offered us suggestions like holding the ball to one side, or the other, or in front of us, or behind us, to remind us which way the ball was going after a timeout.

Embarrassed as hell. First time on over thirty years. I offer my interpreter's statement again, for the benefit of rookies. "When the ball is dead, we must be alive". It's true. It's true. Don't let this happen to you.

We actually had this happen last week in a BV game after a timeout. The administering official handed the Home team the ball (The other two of us can take some blame as well. I was counting players as C though, and when I looked up he was handing it to the Home thrower). As soon as he handed it to them, he "fixed" it and took it back and gave it to the Visitors. No one said anything, so we went on.

On the way home, I mentioned that the Home coach could have been upset because there wasn't much we could do once they were handed the ball. The partner who administered the throw-in says "He can't be upset, it's a correctable error". :rolleyes: It's the same partner who during pregame argued that slapping the backboard while trying to block a shot can be a technical foul if it shakes the rim.

ZM1283:

Your partner was incorrect in saying that it was a Correctable Error. But you were in correct in saying that it couldn't be corrected once the ball was At the Dissposal of the Thrower. It could be corrected anytime before the Throw-in ended.

MTD, Sr.

Can one call a Technical Foul if the backboard shaking is caused by a player who slaps the backboard on purpose to draw attention to him/herself?

You are right, but the more I think about it, I think the Visitors may have thrown the ball in. I actually have the game on DVD, so I'll have to watch it this weekend to see. Maybe that's why I told him we couldn't have fixed it...because it was thrown in.

Yes. If you judge the player was trying to block a shot though, it is nothing.

What does the backboard shaking have to do with this?

In that case, you need to ask your partner when the error was recognized. It's possible to recognize the error, but not get the whistle blown until after the ball has been touched.

It has nothing to do with it if the player is trying to block a shot, or if he is drawing attention to himself. If it seemed that I was implying that the shaking mattered, I wasn't trying to. I was saying that slapping the backboard to draw attention to yourself is a T if it can't be ignored. Slapping the backboard simply in an attempt to block a shot is nothing.

Billy, not that this is an out for you, but did V proactively go to take the throw-in after the time out, and your partner just went with it, or did the visitors take the throw-in, because your partner declared it?

I'd only take a third of the blame, the coach obviously forgot too.

Just a reminder: it's not a correctable error but it can be fixed until the throw-in ends. Here's the closest ruling to your situation from the case book:

7.6.6 SITUATION A:

Team A is awarded a throw-in near the division line. The *administering official by mistake, puts the ball at B1's disposal. B1 completes the throw-in and Team B subsequently scores a goal.

RULING: No correction can be made for the mistake by the official after the throw-in ends

As others have already stated, it can be corrected until the throw-in has ended. The ball may have been thrown-in, but if it hasn't been legally touched yet, it can still be corrected.

Thanks, even though you're echoing MTD's post above where he posts exactly the same thing. I already said I would have to look at the video and see if the throw-in ended. I'm fairly certain that it did.

"When the ball is dead, we must be alive" ...
 

The later. The visitors took the throw-in because my partner declared it?

Hmmm. Let's switch this up a bit.

A is incorrectly given an AP throw in that should have gone to B. Before the pass is released, a) B1 commits a plane violation, or b) A2 fouls B2, or c) A1 reaches the ball across the plane and B1 ties the ball up.

You then realize the error.

In which, if any, situation(s) can you correct the error?

In all three cases, the throw-in was never complete. So, I have...
a) DOG, ball goes back to B.
b) team control foul on A2, ball goes back to B
c) ball goes back to B (the held ball doesn't change the arrow, as the throw-in never completed)

Some of this seems a bit counter-intuitive, but that's what I have.

What if B was entitled to the arrow with the held ball?

B is entitled to arrow and he said B would get the throw-in.

The scenario was that A had the ball for an AP arrow throw-in, and the ball not released yet ... did I have a brain fart?

Right, but I believe PG is asking whether B would keep the arrow. It's a foul on A, so B gets the ball, and it's not an APTI.

In a) and c), however, I have the arrow switching after a completed throw-in.

In a) , did the D.O.G. warning cause the throw-in to end? The throw-in team did not violate.

Read my insert to your quote. :)

This one is making my head hurt.

What did we decide was the cut off for that to be correctible? Was it at the end of the first throw in? Or was it prior to the ball being put in play. If it’s the former I’d argue that all three of those things ends the first throw in, and necessitates a second throw in (or potentially shots if B is in the bonus).

Agreed ... but we still have a held ball on an (incorrect) AP throw-in. Was the whistle blown for a held ball situation? If so, it determines what we have next.

On a held ball of this type (thrower sticks ball through plane) during an AP throw-in the next throw-in is an AP throw-in for the team which had the arrow. Team B had the arrow, but Team A was incorrectly given the throw-in. Therefore it is an AP throw-in for Team B.

This is a good point, as it never was A's throw-in in the first place. Perhaps there's no DOG here.

Okay, so this opens up a can of worms. If you're B, and A has the throw-in incorrectly, should you just step over the line and cause a whistle, thereby getting the ball back when the mistake is realized (and no DOG)?

There is a rule for when a throw in ends. None of these situations qualify.

I'm giving B both.

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.