Correctable Error?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

As described the first FT was the error, not the third.

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

The third free throw that he attempted was the free throw to which he was not entitled to shoot.

This debate is actually very important if the shooter misses some of his free throws. I hope that we can get to some type of conclusion or closure. I want the corect answer.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Bob:

I disagree. A1 should have been awarded only two free throws and he was awarded three free throws. It does not matter if in the minds of the officials (insert half wit joke here, ) that he was awarding one and then two free throws, A1 was only entitled to two free throws and he received them; the third free throw that he attempted was the free throw to which he was not entitled to shoot. If A1 made the second and third or only the third free throw, the third free throw will be canceled. MTD, Sr.

I agree. He gets two FTs. When he shot his second FT, he has now taken 2 FTs.

It makes no difference what senario the officials are saying happened or how they screwed up.

When the first two FTs are taken, any further FTs are unmerited.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I say they gave a two part penalty for one infraction. They got the penalty wrong for one infraction. Two fouls with two penalties is quite different.

Is it?

Originally Posted by OKREF

1 for the and 1 and 2 for the intentional foul.

The OP specifies two separate free throw sets. Two penalties, one two part penalty, what's the difference? Either, of course is equally wrong.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Is it?



The OP specifies two separate free throw sets. Two penalties, one two part penalty, what's the difference? Either, of course is equally wrong.

Show me where an "and 1 foul" is defined in the book and I might agree with you. Of course you can't. There was only 1 foul despite how it was described or how it was called.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Show me where an "and 1 foul" is defined in the book and I might agree with you. Of course you can't.

That's the whole point. There is no such thing. Yet they awarded a free throw for it. First. Followed by two more free throws.

That's why the first one doesn't count.

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by just another ref

That's the whole point. There is no such thing. Yet they awarded a free throw for it. First. Followed by two more free throws.

That's why the first one doesn't count.

I tend to agree here. The first free throw was the one that was not merited and I believe that is the one that can be corrected.