It seems to me the only way this qualifies as a CE is the following:

1. Official whistles and reports defensive GT/BI and awards two points.
2. Partner approaches official and gives him more information.
3. Official informs everyone that the GT call was not correct, but forgets to take away that awarded score.

Now you have a CE that can be fixed during the CE time frame.

Otherwise, if the official doesn't change his call before the ball is put in play after the award, it's too late. It's not a CE.

So all in all, bottom line is that it can be changed before the next live ball??

Yes.

So what are your thoughts about 2.10.1.k that say that erroneously awarding points due to BI is a CE and the timeframe for CE's does apply?

In that case, the call was correct and unchanged, only the application of the penalty (awarding or canceling of the points) was incorrect....thus, it is a CE.....not the situation we have here where the call itself is what is in error.

This is no different than calling an infraction for OOB and then realizing after the other team has the ball that you had the wrong line (or called the wrong color)....too late to fix it.

Again, once an infraction is called, you only have until the ball is subsequently made live to declare it an IW, even if the penalty for the infraction may result in points awarded/canceled. The actual error was calling the infraction.

This:

Also, would you apply CE here:

1. Block/charge situation, U1 calls a block, counts the basket, and awards one FT.
2. A1 misses the FT and B3 gets the rebound but throws it OOB.
3. During the dead ball, U2 informs the official that A1 traveled prior to the block. U1 wants to change his call.

No, because the official did not erroneously count a score, as tref did in his original post. Two very different things.

While I agree with you on your response to Snaqwells' play, you're still missing the point. In the OP by tref, he didn't erroneously count a score. He erroneously called GT (which is no different than erroneously calling any other violation). The ramifications of GT was the counting of the score, but that wasn't the error that was made.

The CE rule only applies when the points awarded are contrary to the call that was made.....as in 2.10.1.k.

My point was that tref's situation was an erroneously called violation. I could change my play to indicate the official called the travel (blowing the whistle while the shot was in the air) and wanted to take it back after the ensuing throw-in. He erroneously cancelled a score, just as tref's situation involved an erroneously awarded score. Neither is CE.

The only part that's eligible for CE treatment is the penalty enforcement, not the judgment call itself.

Hmmm...I believe I see the point. Thanks. I will not make that mistake again.

What's with the attitude? You've gone side ways a few times lately. Not like you.

Not A Correctable Error ...
 

2010 - 2011 NFHS 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)

Thanks for finding this and posting this caseplay BillyMac. You are most helpful, and, by the way, you're quite handsome.

Not sure what you mean...just admitted I was wrong about this play. I now own that rule - as I do many others because of the same sort of thing.

Jumped on you earlier in this thread because I thought YOU were wrong and just wouldn't admit it...turns out I was wrong there too.

Life sucks sometimes.:o

Ok, sorry,....looked a lot like sarcasm. :eek: :o