Colorectalable Error. A real pain in the butt.

[JeffTheRef]

We had a case of correctable error under Federation rules (2-10) that is not directly addressed by any of the 11 situations in the casebook.

A1 deliberately ran into screener B1 and, on making contact, threw an elbow which just missed B1’s face. A flagrant intentional personal foul was called and B1 was, with difficulty, ejected. The officials did a good job just keeping body parts from losing close personal proximity to each other. However, A1 was given the ball for a throw in at the spot of the foul and the 2 foul shot part of the penalty for a flagrant intentional personal foul were not awarded.

The ball was inbounded by Team A and B2 fouled A1. Team A being in the bonus, A1 went to the line, but had not been given the ball, when the table called attention to the error.

The officials reasoned as follows:

1. A potentially correctable error had occurred (failure to award merited free throws). (2-10-1)

2. The correction of the error could be made in the proper time window. (2-10-2) The error was recognized during the first dead ball after the clock had properly started.

3. Points scored, time consumed, etc. should not be nullified (2-10-5)

4. Using the principle that fouls are administered in the order in which they occur, the free throws that were not properly awarded were shot first, with the lane cleared. Next, the bonus free throws (in this case, 1-and-1) were shot with the lane positions filled, the point of interruption. And play resumed from there.

There was nashing of teeth over the matter of whether or not the full penalty for a flagrant intentional personal foul had been fulfilled. Team A’s coach claimed the lane should have been cleared during the shooting of the bonus free throws and his team given the ball after as part of the flagrant intentional foul penalty. Nice try, coach!

But in fact, his team HAD gotten the ball after the flagrant intentional personal foul, and had derived an irrefutable benefit from it - the subsequent foul against Team B. It made less sense to the officials to give Team A a benefit in excess of the stipulated penalty than to force them to bear the burden of having the ‘parts’ of the penalty awarded out of their natural order. This last matter was, in fact, an ‘uncorrectable’ part of the correctable error, and appears not to be directly addressed in the rules.

Yuh think?

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by JeffTheRef
A1 deliberately ran into screener B1 and, on making contact, threw an elbow which just missed B1’s face. A flagrant intentional personal foul was called and B1 was, with difficulty, ejected. The officials did a good job just keeping body parts from losing close personal proximity to each other. However, A1 was given the ball for a throw in at the spot of the foul and the 2 foul shot part of the penalty for a flagrant intentional personal foul were not awarded.

If A1 deliberately fouled B1, why did you give the ball to Team A?

Sounds to me like your post is not correctable, colerectalable for that matter.

[Mregor]

Looks to me like JTR got A and B confused a time or two while typing (A1 threw an elbow at B1's head and B1 was called for foul and DQ'd?) Go ahead and make the correction before everyone tries to assume what actually happened.

But it seems to me that they got it right. Clear the lane and shoot the intentional, then shoot the one and one and continue from there. Like you said, nice try coach.

Mregor



[Edited by Mregor on Jul 24th, 2003 at 07:05 AM]

[Lotto]

Originally posted by JeffTheRef
4. Using the principle that fouls are administered in the order in which they occur, the free throws that were not properly awarded were shot first, with the lane cleared. Next, the bonus free throws (in this case, 1-and-1) were shot with the lane positions filled, the point of interruption. And play resumed from there.

There was nashing of teeth over the matter of whether or not the full penalty for a flagrant intentional personal foul had been fulfilled. Team A’s coach claimed the lane should have been cleared during the shooting of the bonus free throws and his team given the ball after as part of the flagrant intentional foul penalty. Nice try, coach!

But in fact, his team HAD gotten the ball after the flagrant intentional personal foul, and had derived an irrefutable benefit from it - the subsequent foul against Team B. It made less sense to the officials to give Team A a benefit in excess of the stipulated penalty than to force them to bear the burden of having the ‘parts’ of the penalty awarded out of their natural order. This last matter was, in fact, an ‘uncorrectable’ part of the correctable error, and appears not to be directly addressed in the rules.

Yuh think?

This is interesting. I only have the NCAA rules, but I think the correctable error (c.e.) stuff is the same. Here's the relevant portion of 2-10:

Art. 4. When an error is corrected, play shall be resumed from the point of interruption to correct the error, unless the correction involves awarding merited free throw(s) and there has been no change of team possession since the error was made. In that case, play shall resume as after any normal free throw.

In this situation, we are awarding merited free throws and there has been no change of team possession, so it seems as though play would resume "as after any normal free throw." With the way the rule is written, one could even argue that the 1-and-1 free throws should be skipped and that you should immediately shoot the other free throws and continue from there! (Disclaimer: I wouldn't actually do this. :-) ) So there are two questions that I see, one of which I think I know the right answer to, and one that I have no idea on:

1) If there is a c.e. awarding of merited free throws on an intentional foul, is possession of the ball part of the correction? Answer: Yes (in my opinion)---this is the way that play would have resumed as "normal," so the c.e. rule supports that.

2) If there is a correctable awarding of merited free throws for A, and the next dead ball is caused by a foul by B after no change of team possession, and A deserves free throws from this foul, what order do we do things? The general principle of "shoot the fouls in the order in which they occur" suggests we do the ones from the c.e. first, but the text of the c.e. rules suggests that we should continue play after the c.e. free throws. This make a huge difference in the current case (where possession comes as part of the penalty of one foul but not the other). Even if both fouls were common, the order in which we shoot them matters.

Incidentally, if we treat these two fouls as we would a false double, then it wouldn't matter what order we shot them in---possession by A at the end would be part of the deal.

I'd love to hear a more authoritative ruling about this situation!

[JeffTheRef]

Sorry, B1 fouled A1 . . .

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by Lotto
Incidentally, if we treat these two fouls as we would a false double...

This is not a false double foul. "A false double foul is a situation in which there are fouls BY BOTH TEAMS, the second of which occurs BEFORE THE CLOCK IS STARTED following the first, and such that..." (emphasis mine.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Lotto
[/B]

This is interesting. I only have the NCAA rules, but I think the correctable error (c.e.) stuff is the same. Here's the relevant portion of 2-10:

Art. 4. When an error is corrected, play shall be resumed from the point of interruption to correct the error, unless the correction involves awarding merited free throw(s) and there has been no change of team possession since the error was made. In that case, play shall resume as after any normal free throw.

In this situation, we are awarding merited free throws and there has been no change of team possession, so it seems as though play would resume "as after any normal free throw." With the way the rule is written, one could even argue that the 1-and-1 free throws should be skipped and that you should immediately shoot the other free throws and continue from there! (Disclaimer: I wouldn't actually do this. :-) ) So there are two questions that I see, one of which I think I know the right answer to, and one that I have no idea on:

1) If there is a c.e. awarding of merited free throws on an intentional foul, is possession of the ball part of the correction? Answer: Yes (in my opinion)---this is the way that play would have resumed as "normal," so the c.e. rule supports that.

2) If there is a correctable awarding of merited free throws for A, and the next dead ball is caused by a foul by B after no change of team possession, and A deserves free throws from this foul, what order do we do things? The general principle of "shoot the fouls in the order in which they occur" suggests we do the ones from the c.e. first, but the text of the c.e. rules suggests that we should continue play after the c.e. free throws. This make a huge difference in the current case (where possession comes as part of the penalty of one foul but not the other). Even if both fouls were common, the order in which we shoot them matters.

[/B][/QUOTE]Jeff had the right call. NFHS rule 2-10-5 has corresponding language in NCAA rules--"Points,scored,consumed time and additional activity,which may occur prior to the recognition of an error,shall not be nullified". That means that you are always going to shoot the FT's for the 2nd foul,by rule.You then simply take the occurences in the order that they happened. You go back and let A shoot the 2 FT's for the original B foul,with no one on the lane lines. Then you line them up,and let B shoot the FT's that they have coming.If B wasn't in the bonus,then you would give them the ball OOB after A has finished shooting their 2 correctible FT's.

Note that you have already given Team A the ball OOB after the original Team B intentional foul.Why would you even think of giving them the ball OOB again at the point of correction? That would be 2 OOB's awarded for 1 foul.

See NFHS casebook play 2.10.6SIT(b). It's close to the play above.

[JeffTheRef]

The situation was just enough different that it resulted in the two 'phases' of the intentional personal foul penalty being applied in a non-standard way . . . probably just the 'way' it goes.

[Lotto]

Originally posted by rainmaker

This is not a false double foul. "A false double foul is a situation in which there are fouls BY BOTH TEAMS, the second of which occurs BEFORE THE CLOCK IS STARTED following the first, and such that..." (emphasis mine.

Sorry about the confusion. First, I meant "flase multiple," not "false double." Second, I am not saying that this is a flase multiple foul, but only that it bears some resemblence, as there are two fouls whose penalties are being administered consecutively.

[Lotto]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee Jeff had the right call. NFHS rule 2-10-5 has corresponding language in NCAA rules--"Points,scored,consumed time and additional activity,which may occur prior to the recognition of an error,shall not be nullified". That means that you are always going to shoot the FT's for the 2nd foul,by rule.

Right..."additional activity" covers the 2nd foul. I agree that we're going to shoot both sets of free throws. But...

You then simply take the occurences in the order that they happened. You go back and let A shoot the 2 FT's for the original B foul,with no one on the lane lines. Then you line them up,and let B shoot the FT's that they have coming.If B wasn't in the bonus,then you would give them the ball OOB after A has finished shooting their 2 correctible FT's.

How do you square this with rule 2-10-4, which tells us that "When an error is corrected, play shall be resumed from the point of interruption to correct the error, unless the correction involves awarding merited free throw(s) and there has been no change of team possession since the error was made. In that case, play shall resume as after any normal free throw."

Note that you have already given Team A the ball OOB after the original Team B intentional foul.Why would you even think of giving them the ball OOB again at the point of correction? That would be 2 OOB's awarded for 1 foul.

Because that's what 2-10-4 seems to be telling us to do. Shooting the free throws for the 2nd foul is going back to the point of interruption, which 2-10-4 tells us not to do.

What if there were no 2nd foul, but rather a timeout by team A. What would you do after the merited free throws are shot because of the correction? Based on what rule?

See NFHS casebook play 2.10.6SIT(b). It's close to the play above.

I don't have NF rule books. Would someone be willing to type that case in for me?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Lotto
[/B]

[/B][/QUOTE]
How do you square this with rule 2-10-4, which tells us that "When an error is corrected, play shall be resumed from the point of interruption to correct the error, unless the correction involves awarding merited free throw(s) and there has been no change of team possession since the error was made. In that case, play shall resume as after any normal free throw."
[/B][/QUOTE]Lotto,in this particular case,using the language of the rule above,the "point of interruption" and play resuming as "after any normal free throw' happen to be exactly the same thing. They discovered the error before the "normal free throws" were taken,,and then corrected the error before again resuming play with the "normal free throws" for the 2nd. B foul. Make sense?

[Lotto]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Lotto,in this particular case,using the language of the rule above,the "point of interruption" and play resuming as "after any normal free throw' happen to be exactly the same thing. They discovered the error before the "normal free throws" were taken,,and then corrected the error before again resuming play with the "normal free throws" for the 2nd. B foul. Make sense?

That isn't how I read the rule. The part of 2-10-4 that starts with "unless" (quoted above) says to me that when the c.e. involves awarding free throws and there has been no change of team possession since the error, you don't resume from the point of interruption. You just start play with the free throws and go on from there, with a rebound (if the last free throw is missed) or an out-of bounds by the defense along the endline (if the last free throw is made). Am I reading this wrong?

For example, suppose B commits a common foul against A and merited free throws are not awarded. A takes the ball in bounds and calls a time-out after a few seconds. The c.e. is discovered, A gets c.e. free throws, and makes both. Then play would continue "as after any normal free throw" with B taking the ball out of bounds on the endline. You wouldn't give the ball back to A at the point of interruption.

So what makes this situation different (by rule---I know what makes it different on the court)? The only way to have it the way you've laid it out is if B's second foul has caused a "change in team possession." Has there been? Unfortunately, there's no definition of "team possession" in Rule 4.

Sorry to be so long winded, but it's hard to convey subtle shades of meaning of text over the internet!

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Lotto
[/B]

That isn't how I read the rule. The part of 2-10-4 that starts with "unless" (quoted above) says to me that when the c.e. involves awarding free throws and there has been no change of team possession since the error, you don't resume from the point of interruption. [/B][/QUOTE]Exactly! I agree with that completely,and that's what I've been trying to say. In this case,they DID NOT resume from the point of interruption. They DID resume from the "normal free throws" that would be taken for the second B foul.That's when they discovered the error,and that's when they corrected it. What's confusing is that "resumption of the normal free throws",in this particular case,also happened to occur at the exact same time as the "point of interruption" did.

[Lotto]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

That isn't how I read the rule. The part of 2-10-4 that starts with "unless" (quoted above) says to me that when the c.e. involves awarding free throws and there has been no change of team possession since the error, you don't resume from the point of interruption. [/B]

Exactly! I agree with that completely,and that's what I've been trying to say. In this case,they DID NOT resume from the point of interruption. They DID resume from the "normal free throws" that would be taken for the second B foul.That's when they discovered the error,and that's when they corrected it. What's confusing is that "resumption of the normal free throws",in this particular case,also happened to occur at the exact same time as the "point of interruption" did. [/B][/QUOTE]

I can't see that "normal free throws" could possibly refer to anything but the c.e. free throws, but perhaps I'm reading this too narrowly.