I disagree. I believe this falls under 2-10 as a CE. Think about this, if we count a basket that actually wasn't good, aren't we erroneously awarding a score?

Not that I'm big on the adjudication of CEs, but that's ^^ what I was thinking.

+1

If the decision is only a judgment call, then no. We are making a judgment that the basket counts on a last second count is not necessarily erroneous. We may decide that we screwed up, but I do not see it as an erroneous error that falls under 2-10. And I am more concerned with the process than the rule here. I think it is basically too late to come back in the locker room and decided to change that call. Do it on the floor or leave it alone.

Peace

The T whos not in a good position marks a 3 point attempt, the C clearly sees a toe on the line, shot goes & T signals the make. Isnt that a judgment call that can & should be corrected?

No, that is a Correctable Error.

MTD, Sr.

P.S. And I agree with Rut.

Not really a judgment call, it was either one way or the other in that case. You are either behind the line or you are not. And even in that case I would hope that would not be a discussion and it would be properly corrected. That is like saying we have a foul and then we go to the locker room and say we did not have a foul.

I guess what I am mostly opposed to is the fact you go to the locker room then discuss the play and change it. I guess it could be seen as a correctable error, but I have more of a problem with going to the locker room when information was should have been shared onto the floor.

Peace

On this I fully agree!! If we have disagreement at the end of the half, it needs to be resolved while we're still on the floor.

So toe the line or not is correctable & ball in hand or not is judgment. Got it!
Just for the record, I'm all for fixing this on the floor as well.

Erroneously awarding or cancelling a basket is to me something you do under the rules. Erroneous is not making a judgment call and deciding that you should award a basket, like counting a basket on a foul shot. Erroneous to me would probably be more like an air ball that is treated like a made basket. And then we go about our business as if that was a made basket.

Peace

Got it, I see the difference JRut.

That being said, whether the ball was released in time or not, can & should be taken care of on the court.

<s>This falls in the 2-10 category, I believe. I think it can be corrected before the end of the first dead ball after the clock starts (could be well into the 2nd half).</s> Never mind, per APG's post below this one.
That said, I can't imagine coming out of the locker room and fixing it to start the 2nd half.

If my partner is that sure, then he would approach me before we head off the court. If he brings it up in the locker room, he's not going to be convincing enough to change my mind.

To give JRut's line of thinking some backing

2010-2011 NFHS Basketball Interpretations

SITUATION 1: Three-tenths of a second remain on the clock in the second quarter. A1’s throw-in is “caught” by A2, released on a try, and the officials count the basket. The coaches do not protest, the officials do not confer and all participants head to their respective locker rooms. Upon returning to the court with three minutes remaining in the intermission, the opposing coach asks the officials if the basket should have counted since the ball was clearly caught and released with three-tenths of a second on the clock. The officials realize their error at this point. RULING: The goal counts; this is not a correctable-error situation as described in Rule 2-10. (2-10; 5-2-5)

I will say, that I think this interpretation is silly...this is the exact definition of erroneously setting a score because the officials set aside a rule.

That is patently absurd, that's not even a judgment call. The NFHS' Random Absurd Interpretation Generator is working overtime these days.

http://forum.officiating.com/basketb...1-interps.html

Remember our discussion on this? It was situation 1 in that year's interps. :(


PS I see that APG posted this while I was searching for the old thread.