Changing an incorrect call

[tref]

Has anybody here ever called a b/c violation or an OOB violation, but quickly realized it was the wrong line? I'm assuming we can say IW & give the correct team the ball back in those senarios.
Just like we do if a coach says "five out" & we mistakingly grant a timeout.

How about a situation where we call a goaltending but in reality he whiffed at the ball but did not touch it... he just hit the glass.

Wondering if we can use the same principles in this situation to make it right OR is that one we have to eat. Thoughts??

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by tref

Has anybody here ever called a b/c violation or an OOB violation, but quickly realized it was the wrong line? I'm assuming we can say IW & give the correct team the ball back in those senarios.
Just like we do if a coach says "five out" & we mistakingly grant a timeout.

How about a situation where we call a goaltending but in reality he whiffed at the ball but did not touch it... he just hit the glass.

Wondering if we can use the same principles in this situation to make it right OR is that one we have to eat. Thoughts??

Yes...wrong line....IW. Until you put the ball back in play, you can fix it by giving it to the team that had control (or possession) of the ball at the time of the IW.

As for the GT, if you realize you got it wrong, the only thing you can do is go to the arrow since no team has control (assuming it missed).

[tref]

How about the GT?

[Raymond]

I once had a conversation with someone who said they felt they could use the correctable error rule to remedy and inproper GT call.

[tref]

I too was thinking about applying it to a CE (erroneously counting or canceling a score).

Most officials that I've spoken with say no, that CE only applies to a 2 or a 3 point basket.

What became of your conversation?

[Toren]

Originally Posted by tref

I too was thinking about applying it to a CE (erroneously counting or canceling a score).

Most officials that I've spoken with say no, that CE only applies to a 2 or a 3 point basket.

I'm having trouble understanding how this scenario played out.

The Defender tried to block the shot but missed and the referee blew his whistle thinking it was a GT?

I certainly don't think you can use a CE for this type of error. CE's don't give us to ability to correct an incorrect violation.

I think you just have to eat this one. IW would apply.

[tref]

Originally Posted by Toren

I'm having trouble understanding how this scenario played out.

The Defender tried to block the shot but missed and the referee blew his whistle thinking it was a GT?

I certainly don't think you can use a CE for this type of error. CE's don't give us to ability to correct an incorrect violation.

I think you just have to eat this one. IW would apply.

You have the situation correct... it was an attempted block off the glass after the ball already hit the glass (mens league with college & pro rules).

On the quick steal fastbreak (old L new T) I saw the ball hit the glass, less than a second later a 6'9" defender flies out of nowhere & beats the glass up. I thought he hit the ball too, obviously I was wrong.

If CEs "dont give us the ability to correct an IC violation" why is it that we can fix a b/c when we get our lines mixed up by going with an IW & POI?

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by tref

On the quick steal fastbreak (old L new T) I saw the ball hit the glass, less than a second later a 6'9" defender flies out of nowhere & beats the glass up. I thought he hit the ball too, obviously I was wrong.

I'm not getting where your issue is here, so please walk me through the rest of what happened...

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? Or you hit the whistle and then realized the defender whiffed and so never reported to the table?

Walk me through what happened and why you are not sure how to handle it correctly, please.

[Toren]

Originally Posted by tref

You have the situation correct... it was an attempted block off the glass after the ball already hit the glass (mens league with college & pro rules).

On the quick steal fastbreak (old L new T) I saw the ball hit the glass, less than a second later a 6'9" defender flies out of nowhere & beats the glass up. I thought he hit the ball too, obviously I was wrong.

If CEs "dont give us the ability to correct an IC violation" why is it that we can fix a b/c when we get our lines mixed up by going with an IW & POI?

A CE is specificially 5 types of errors. That doesn't mean there aren't other errors we can't fix, but we just don't call them CE's. Like a record keeping error, we can fix those but we don't call them Correctable Errors, even though in reality they are errors that we can correct.

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.

So if the shot still went in, you have POI at the endline. If the shot didn't, you go arrow.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by tref

I too was thinking about applying it to a CE (erroneously counting or canceling a score).

Most officials that I've spoken with say no, that CE only applies to a 2 or a 3 point basket.

What became of your conversation?

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.

[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

[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.

[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.