Changing an incorrect call

[JetMetFan]

2.10.1 SITUATION K:

(a) A1; or (b) B1 commits basket interference at Team A's basket. In (a), the referee erroneously counts the score; or in (b), fails to count it. In each case, the error is not discovered until the ball has become live following the dead ball during which the error occurred.

RULING: The official's error in both (a) and (b) is still correctable.

It's not the exact situation from the OP but it does show we can correct situations regarding BI. The question is would it be too much of a strtech to think we can correct situations regarding inadvertent GT calls as well.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say we can but I'd also say we shouldn't make a habit of it.

Originally Posted by Toren

I'm thinking in your GT situation, you can also go IW & POI, but don't explain it as a CE because that's not accurate.

Toren, why wouldn't CE be accurate. 2-10-1e says "Erroneously counting or canceling a score." That's what this is, isn't it?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

It's not the exact situation from the OP but it does show we can correct situations regarding BI. The question is would it be too much of a strtech to think we can correct situations regarding inadvertent GT calls as well.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say we can but I'd also say we shouldn't make a habit of it.



Toren, why wouldn't CE be accurate. 2-10-1e says "Erroneously counting or canceling a score." That's what this is, isn't it?

And A.R. 24 is the same as the NFHS case play.

NCAA-M has the following note with 2-12-1:
Note: In order for this to be a correctable error, the official must have erred in counting or canceling a successful try for goal according to a rule (i.e., after basket interference or goaltending, incorrectly counting or failing to cancel a score or counting a three-point goal instead of a two-point goal). A correctable error does not involve an error in judgment.

So it appears the CE rule only applies for GT or BI if the official fails to properly award or cancel a score after making GT/BI call. So A1 shoots, B1 goaltends, official blows whistle for GT call but doesn't direct scorer to award 2 points.

[Toren]

Originally Posted by badnewsref

ncaa-m has the following note with 2-12-1:
note: In order for this to be a correctable error, the official must have erred in counting or canceling a successful try for goal according to a rule (i.e., after basket interference or goaltending, incorrectly counting or failing to cancel a score or counting a three-point goal instead of a two-point goal). A correctable error does not involve an error in judgment.

and a.r. 24 is the same as the nfhs case play.

+1

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

And A.R. 24 is the same as the NFHS case play.

NCAA-M has the following note with 2-12-1:
Note: In order for this to be a correctable error, the official must have erred in counting or canceling a successful try for goal according to a rule (i.e., after basket interference or goaltending, incorrectly counting or failing to cancel a score or counting a three-point goal instead of a two-point goal). A correctable error does not involve an error in judgment.

So it appears the CE rule only applies for GT or BI if the official fails to properly award or cancel a score after making GT/BI call. So A1 shoots, B1 goaltends, official blows whistle for GT call but doesn't direct scorer to award 2 points.

Okay, so much for my trip to the limb. What NCAA says is if you mess up in calling the BI/GT you can't take it back. That seems reasonable.

[tref]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

And A.R. 24 is the same as the NFHS case play.

NCAA-M has the following note with 2-12-1:
Note: In order for this to be a correctable error, the official must have erred in counting or canceling a successful try for goal according to a rule (i.e., after basket interference or goaltending, incorrectly counting or failing to cancel a score or counting a three-point goal instead of a two-point goal). A correctable error does not involve an error in judgment.

So it appears the CE rule only applies for GT or BI if the official fails to properly award or cancel a score after making GT/BI call. So A1 shoots, B1 goaltends, official blows whistle for GT call but doesn't direct scorer to award 2 points.

Ok so its not a CE... could we go IW & make it right like the IC b/c play or is it one we have to eat like giving the ball to the wrong team & realizing it after the throw-in has ended??

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by tref

Ok so its not a CE... could we go IW & make it right like the IC b/c play or is it one we have to eat like giving the ball to the wrong team & realizing it after the throw-in has ended??

No, the fact that you erroneously counted the score does make it a CE. Fix it and move on.

[tref]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

. Fix it and move on.

Ok thats all I'm looking for... we CAN fix it?

[tref]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

You hit the whistle and reported GT to the table and told them to count the basket? Then your partner came to you with information?

Yes. Never had that situation & unsure if this falls under a CE.

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

It was a few years ago with an NCAA-W female official so it was a situation she never had to deal with but her logic was that it falls under erroneously crediting a basket. Forgot how the convo ended and I've never had anybody else bring up that interpretation.

Thx!

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

It's not the exact situation from the OP but it does show we can correct situations regarding BI. The question is would it be too much of a strtech to think we can correct situations regarding inadvertent GT calls as well.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say we can but I'd also say we shouldn't make a habit of it.

I read 2.10.1 K before I posted here & the difference is that BI actually occured here, in mine it didnt. My partner said it was nothing we could do now (wondering why he came to me) I said didnt I erroneously count a basket. He said this didnt fit a CE...

And yes sir, I dont want to make that mistake again. Another reason why 3 trumps 2 IMO. The steal happened at mid-court, I was already setup on the endline as L by the time the play happened I was just crossing midcourt & it was on my side of the court (possibly straightlined) the C would have a great look. GTs & BIs on my opposite side are easier to see than the ones that happen on the same side that I'm on.