Possible CE, MN/MSU

[Rich]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

That is a misapplication of the rules, not a correctable error per say. Now unless they noticed this in a timely matter it could be corrected under the CE rule, but this is not a typical CE situation because they were shooting when by rule it was a TC foul.

Peace

Sorry to pile on, but awarding unmerited free throws as a result of a team control foul is a correctable error. Even if they didn't recognize it as a team control foul when the foul was called, they can still correct this within the window.

Doesn't surprise me when these are missed, BTW.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Rich

Sorry to pile on, but awarding unmerited free throws as a result of a team control foul is a correctable error. Even if they didn't recognize it as a team control foul when the foul was called, they can still correct this within the window.

Doesn't surprise me when these are missed, BTW.

And I think you guys are missing the point I am making. It is only a correctable error if they invoke that rule. It is a misapplication of the rules to even be in that situation. This is not like a guy that was sent to the line erroneously like awarding points he did not score or they gave a 3 points instead of a 2. This was simply a misapplication. Now if they caught it in time then they could correct the situation by that rule, but that is not what they did in the end. Heck you do not even need to invoke the CE rule at all if someone says, "Hey, this was a TC foul and we do not shoot these." They did not do anything but shoot FTs on a situation which clearly. I do not consider that invoking the CE rule, I consider that enforcing the rule properly. They did not come back later and then put the ball where they interrupted the play to correct the mistake.

This happen to me last post season where there was a loose ball foul called and I initially was going to send the fouled player to the line. Then my partner quickly came over and said, "They were in TC right?" The light bulb came on and we put the ball at the out of bounds spot. We did not use 2-10, it was making sure we applied the rule properly. That was not done here and 2-14 (I believe) was not used.

It might be semantics, but this is not a CE situation, this is a complete misapplication of a very basic rule. This clearly was in the TC window off a throw-in and the reason the NF rule was changed to clarify when a TC foul will be applied on a throw-in.

Peace

[just another ref]

I think you're right.

We're missing the point you're making.

[Forksref]

Originally Posted by just another ref

I think you're right.

We're missing the point you're making.

And Michigan State missed the FT and did not make the point or have a chance at the second point so the discussion point is made even though the FT point is not made but should not have been even attempted and that is the point that Rut was making and others were making for a different reason but the points are both good! Kumbaya

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Forksref

And Michigan State missed the FT and did not make the point or have a chance at the second point so the discussion point is made even though the FT point is not made but should not have been even attempted and that is the point that Rut was making and others were making for a different reason but the points are both good! Kumbaya

Then the question I have now, how do you have a CE on a missed FT? You are not taking off points. You cannot give the ball back to Minnesota at the spot of the foul. So how is this really a CE situation at all?

Peace

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Then the question I have now, how do you have a CE on a missed FT?

Whether the free throw is made or missed has no bearing on whether or not it was a correctable error.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Whether the free throw is made or missed has no bearing on whether or not it was a correctable error.

Yes it does. You cannot invoke 2-10 or 2-12 (NCAA Rule) unless you are counting or cancelling something.

BTW, here is a note out of the NCAA Rulebook.

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.

No points were scored or needed to be cancelled.

Peace

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Forksref

And Michigan State missed the FT and did not make the point or have a chance at the second point so the discussion point is made even though the FT point is not made but should not have been even attempted and that is the point that Rut was making and others were making for a different reason but the points are both good! Kumbaya

That's what makes it an error.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

This happen to me last post season where there was a loose ball foul called and I initially was going to send the fouled player to the line. Then my partner quickly came over and said, "They were in TC right?" The light bulb came on and we put the ball at the out of bounds spot. We did not use 2-10, it was making sure we applied the rule properly. That was not done here and 2-14 (I believe) was not used.

Since you "fixed" the problem before the FTs, it wasn't a CE situation.

In this game, the FT's were shot, so it was a CE situation (or at least a potential CE situation -- maybe that's your point)

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Since you "fixed" the problem before the FTs, it wasn't a CE situation.

In this game, the FT's were shot, so it was a CE situation (or at least a potential CE situation -- maybe that's your point)

No, the point is they applied a rule inproperly. They could have corrected it, but they did not.

Peace

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

No, the point is they applied a rule inproperly. They could have corrected it, but they did not.

Peace

So if they don't correct it, it isn't a correctable error?

If a guy takes 7 steps with no whistle, it wasn't a travel?

[johnny d]

if they had corrected the error of awarding an unmerited free throw, they should have also ignored the foul on the msu player during the free throw as it was not intentional or flagrant.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by johnny d

if they had corrected the error of awarding an unmerited free throw, they should have also ignored the foul on the msu player during the free throw as it was not intentional or flagrant.

Not the case, do you know why?

[afsst]

Originally Posted by johnny d

if they had corrected the error of awarding an unmerited free throw, they should have also ignored the foul on the msu player during the free throw as it was not intentional or flagrant.

Incorrect statement...as soon as the ball came off the rim (and would not score) the free throw ended, so the foul would be counted.