Correctable Error?
 

Got a phone call last night.

Intentional foul on a made basket. Crew gets together and shoots 3 free throws. 1 for the and 1 and 2 for the intentional foul. Now I know right off the bat this is a big screw up. My question. Is the first free throw correctable? If so, does it have to be caught before the first of the 2 intentional fouls they gave or after the first dead ball after the throw in?

First dead ball after the clock has properly started.

That is what I thought. Now say that free throw was made, we are taking the point off the board correct? Man I just know that would be a nightmare thing to have happen.

They have until during the first dead ball after the clock has properly started to correct, so they can absolutely wipe the incorrect 1-and-1 off the book.

Yep.

Yes, point comes off the board. Not really that big of a deal, when you consider everything else the offended team still has going for it here.

If the 3rd FT is missed. Do you still have a CE situation?

Triad Zebra:

Your question goes to the heart of the OP. The penalty for an IPF is two free throws unless the foul was committed against a player who was in the Act of Shooting an unsuccessful three-point FG, then the penalty would be three free throws. The penalty for the situation in the OP is only two free throws, the Correctable Error was the awarding of the third free throw. Just A Ref told us the proper way to handle the situation. If the third free throw was successful, wipe the point out of the Scorebook, and if it was unsuccessful, no blood no foul (:D).

MTD, Sr.

Just to make sure we know which shots we are wiping, as the posts are getting crossed in my thinking...

Three shots are awarded incorrectly when there should be 2.

You are wiping either
A)The "and 1" (first free throw)
B)Second of the the 2 INT free throws(third free throw)

I was thinking the same thing. It could matter, and should be based on what the crew said they were doing (amongst themselves, then to the table, then to coaches).

Agreed.

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

Yes. The first free throw was the error, as they said it was for the foul on a made shot. They then awarded 2 for the intentional foul. I just don't understand why they did it. All I know is that it wasn't corrected and they played on. If caught, it would have to be corrected after the throw in on the first dead ball, correct?

Yes.

Saw the exact same call made at the local high school here, perhaps ten years ago. The official's explanation: "One for the foul, two for the intentional."

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, :p) 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.

Immovable Object And Irresistible Force ...
 

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.

http://ts3.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.47140...03990&pid=15.1

Always listen to MTD, Sr. No ... Bob ... always listen to Bob.

I'm going with what Bob said.

There is no debate. The question has been answered.

There is no "and 1."

Let's try this a different way.

A1 shoots the "and 1". A1 shoots the "first of 2 for the intentional". Now, someone wakes up and says, "hey -- he only gets 2". Do we say he's shot his two, or do we wipe out the first, and shoot the third?

(and, to be clear, I thought I deleted my post above before I hit "post", but apparently not. Sorry to tell you Billy, but until the FED comes out, I don't think you'll get a definitive answer.)

As I said before, I think it depends on - and that this convo should happen - with what the R or reporting official tells the table (and hopefully the coaches) before any shots happen.

Rock And A Hard Place ...
 

Great? And exactly how am I supposed to get any sleep tonight?

Billy:

You can sleep tonight if you listen to me, :D; sorry Bob, but I have to take a stand on this one.

The ruling will be the same for both an NFHS IPF or an NCAA Flagrant 1 PF. The penalty for both of these fouls against a player attempting a two-point FG is two free throws, not three free throws (no matter what combination in which the free throws are shot: 1 + 2; 2 + 1; 1 + 1 + 1; or 3) which means that the third free throw that A1 shoots is the unmerited free throw.

A1 got to shoot his two free throws and that is all the matters. If the third free throw was successful: cancel the score.

MTD, Sr.

It is difficult to say how you would correct an error if you cannot imagine making that error. I cannot imagine a varsity official who doesn't know this rule.

BUT,

you gotta do something.

What MTD says sounds very reasonable when he says it. But, my first thought was if the free throws are announced as "one" followed by "two" the first is certainly the one which was not merited. Bottom line is that I'm the ref and what I say goes so either is correct.

The night I saw this happen, I was a bit surprised that the coach on the short end didn't know better. Considerable time has passed, and now I find it less surprising what a coach doesn't know.

And when he gets such a call in his favor, he'll insist on three free throws, yelling about "the officials last week."

Just Another Ref:

No where in the rules will you find anything about how the free throws awarded are grouped other than the definition of bonus free throws. The long and short of it is that three free throws were awarded when only two should have been awarded. If the third free throw was successful, cancel it.

Of course arguing with a possum may be easier than arguing with me, :D.

MTD, Sr.

What if the call had been a common foul followed by a T?

Official designates these free throws accordingly, same shooter takes all 4, makes the first 2, misses the next 2, then it is discovered that the team was not in the bonus. Which 2 do you wipe out?

And another thing:

Had there been 2 separate fouls committed against the shooter in this play, if the intentional shots were first, the last would have been shot with players in the lane spaces.

That is a no brainer: The last two free throws. The player was only entitled to two free throws. The error was awarding him the third and fourth free throws.

MTD, Sr.


P.S. Just Another Ref, let us tweak the situation your proposed where the player fouled, A1, shoots the free throws awarded for the PF and makes both of them, then A2 shoots, and makes, the free throws for the TF. A1's free throws are the unmerited free three throws and are nullified.

Heaven help me.
 

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.

Thanks Tony. The check is in the mail.

MTD, Sr.

This particular player in this case was entitled to no free throws at all. Yet the first two in this situation were so designated.

The free throws which were specifically awarded for the PF were unmerited. A different shooter for the shots on the T doesn't change this.

I think the former...he's done. The problem was awarding the wrong number of shots for a single foul. It isn't like there are several fouls that got all mixed up. It doesn't really matter what you call the shots because the player took the correct number and any in excess would be the mistake.

I disagree. There are two different fouls here and that makes the difference. At any given time, you are shooting the penalties for a specific foul. I'm canceling the 1st two as those FTs were not merited because they were for the PF.

This PS really gets to the heart of it. A1 was shooting the PF because A1 was required to shoot them. The T might have been shot any player but A1 was chosen....but it could have easily been A2. If it had been A2, it is obvious that the first FTs should be canceled. since those were the ones taken for the PF. Why would it be any different if A1 happened to selected for the FTs for the T?

My post above was made at 09:35pmEST, which was 35 minutes past my bedtime. That is my story (and excuse) and I am sticking with it. That said, I have since read the posts after it and thought about it and I think it was Camron that correctly broke this play down into two separate fouls and that unlike this thread's OP we cannot combine the two penalties in this particular play. That means we have to look at the penalties separately, and apply the Correctable Error Rule appropriately.

MTD, Sr.

It seems that the crew in the OP broke their play down into two separate penalties as well.


Therefore I believe that the same principle applies.

In the OP the game officials imposed two penalties for only one infraction for the rules. In the play discussed later in the thread there were two separate infractions for which each one has its one penalty. Can't use same logic.

MTD, Sr.


P.S. I may have to deduct 1,000 points from you but I will let you keep the both fine Cuban cigars, :D.

I beg to differ. We all know it's improper, but what about this. What if the foul had been a punch? The officials call it a T for fighting, then award the and 1 to the offended player and 2 to another shooter.

They applied 2 penalties. The first was the one that was wrong.

There are many that say that a live ball punch is a flagrant personal and A1 would be shooting in any case.

We've covered that before and I did, and continue, to assert that there is a contradiction in the rules on the point as to whether it is a T or a personal for live ball fighting.

Yes to all that, but that wasn't the point here. They imposed two penalties for one infraction. I separate the two when correcting the error. MTD lumps them together.

Camron:

I have always questioned the contradiction, and have never received a satisfactory answer.

MTD, Sr.

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?

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.

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.