iirc, this case play was changed in the 2005 timeframe -- and we noted it was "wrong" then.

If you look at 2.10.1.F (I think -- I'm away from my books right now), you find a similar play, but the error is discovered during a held ball. If the arrow is pointing to B, that's enough to be a change of posession. So, imo, being fouled and entitled to either a throw-in or FTs should also meet the "change of posession" criteria.

I hadn't seen this case play. It's interesting that they specifically say that if the arrow is pointing to A, then 2-10-6 applies and the FTs are taken with players in the lane. This discredits my theory that "change of team possession" is any time a team with TC loses TC.

With this case play in mind, here's a revised definition of "change of team possession": TC status (whether A, B, or no TC) shifts from one status to another during a live ball following the CE or would otherwise shift to a status different from the status that existed immediately prior to the dead ball if not for the CE. Then B's rebound is a "change of team possession" in OP's scenario and 2.10.1.F is a "change of team possession" if B has the arrow.

This definition would create a problem, however, if in 2.10.1.F the next dead ball is a foul by B where A would be entitled to FTs. While I don't think it's necessarily fair for A to get the FTs from that new foul since the only reason they had possession in the first place is because they got a throw-in due to the CE, there's absolutely no rule that lets the officials cancel that foul in this situation. But there definitely hasn't been a "change of team possession".

2-10 is unclear about this. I wish they'd include language to clarify what exactly constitutes a "change of team possession".

For those of us who have been around since before this incorrect case play was issued, I will tell you that the above is the correct way to handle such situations.

Note that NCAAW has just issued an interp that (correctly, imo) contradicts FED 2.10.1A:

QUESTION:

A1 is fouled and entitled to two free throws but the officials indicate a one-and-one bonus situation. The first attempt is unsuccessful and B1 rebounds the ball and passes it up to B2 near the 28ft mark heading down the court. The clock operator sounds the horn and the error is discovered with B2 in possession of the ball near mid-court.

I've been debating with several other officials on how this correctable error should be properly handled/administered.

How do we properly correct this error? Do we line players up in the lane line spaces and resume play after meriting A1 her 2nd shot or do we clear the lane line spaces and award Team B the ball near mid-court (where they were last in possession)?

ANSWER:

In your play, because the error is recognized before the first dead ball after the error, the officials are still within the time frame to correct the error. A1 will shoot her remaining free throw with no players in marked lane spaces, after which play will resume at the point of interruption (a throw-in to Team B at the out of bounds spot nearest to where play was stopped) (Rule 2-12.1.a, 2-12.2, 2-12.5).

Excellent! Now someone please send that to the NFHS and instruct them to correct their case play.

Well -- what if it's the NCAAW who is "wrong" (as in the other case play you mentioned regarding timing of fouls)? ;)

And, sometimes there's just a difference between the codes.

Since we now have Team Control during Throw-ins, the term "Team Possession" does not exist anymore. BUT, since the Free Thrower does have Player Control of the ball during a FT until he releases the FT Attempt, there is Team Control while there is Player Control of the Ball.

MTD, Sr.

Saw a missed correctable error situation yesterday. I was in the stands watching the JV game before my Varsity. Visiting team at 6 fouls, home team has the ball. Shot goes up, hits the rim, comes down and there is a rebounding foul against the visitors. The ref reports, goes back and puts the ball in play. Me and my partners are like "WTF?" The table never signals 1 and 1 and the home team isn't protesting either. Well I (perhaps unwisely) decide to go down to the table and see what's up. There is a timeout and I go to the official scorer and ask "shouldn't that foul have been 1 and 1?" He responds "no, it was an offensive foul." I go back and tell my partners we gotta watch out for this table now. I was thinking he might have only been the scorer for the JV game but nope, when I went to do my R responsibilities for the Varsity game there he was. Thankfully he didn't recognize me from 30 minutes earlier :cool: and we had no problems during the game.

I didn't know the JV guys so I didn't mention it to them.