Correctable Error Question

[LRZ]

To answer your two questions, I don't know and no.

According to 2.10.1A, B's rebound of A's missed FT does not constitute a change of possession: "Team B securing the rebound and passing to a teammate constitutes no change in team possession. Therefore, A1 will receive the merited FT with players in lane line spaces and play resumes from the FT."

That seems clear enough. But I'm asking about how to resume play because I'm having trouble reconciling these two principles: If A's foul on B is "additional activity" which is not nullified, so the FTs should be awarded (2-10-5), how do you resume play with A's merited free throw and play continues (2-10-6, 2.10.1A)?

[LRZ]

So does it matter if the officials are alerted to the mistake while B brings the ball up; when the clock is stopped because A deflected a B pass OOB or kicked a pass; or when A fouls B but no FTs are merited?

Or go with POI regardless of what the situation is when the officials timely learn of the error? There is a logic to that.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by LRZ

So does it matter if the officials are alerted to the mistake while B brings the ball up; when the clock is stopped because A deflected a B pass OOB or kicked a pass; or when A fouls B but no FTs are merited?

Or go with POI regardless of what the situation is when the officials timely learn of the error? There is a logic to that.

if B gets the rebound and the ball is just passed around/dribbled and you discover the error then, per the case play, go back and shoot the A fT and play from there.

if the ball is knocked out of bounds by A, kicking violation, or foul by A and then error is discovered "recognize" the change in possession and go to POI

[La Rikardo]

It's really too bad that change of team possession is not a well-defined term in the rulebook. A quick search on the online version of the rules on Arbiter reveals that 2-10-6 is the only time the phrase "change of team possession" appears in the rulebook.

I can buy arguments both ways. On the one hand, I think this situation would strike the average basketball fan as a change of possession. A was the last team to possess the ball when the CE occurred (I'm assuming we can all agree that "team possession" means having TC) and B was the last to have TC when the CE was identified.

On the other hand, from a strict rules perspective, I think the most obvious way to interpret the phrase "change of team possession since the error was made" is any team which has or gains TC either when the CE occurs or after the CE occurs, loses TC, and their opponents gain TC. In this case the CE occurred at the moment the officials allowed the ball to remain live following the first free throw. At that moment in time, neither team had TC. By my interpretation, this would require the next team that gains TC to lose TC and for their opponents to gain TC before the CE is identified in order for 2-10-6 not to apply. B was the first team to have TC after the CE occurred. B lost TC when their player was fouled. At this point the CE was identified, but A did not gain TC before that CE was identified. Because of this, I believe there is an argument that 2-10-6 applies in this situation.

Buuuuuuut, to add another caveat, there is no provision in 2-10 that allows the officials to cancel the personal foul by A. The only time a foul can be canceled is if the CE was an unmerited FT or a FT at the wrong basket, the foul occurred during the FT's "activity", and the foul was not unsporting, flagrant, intentional, or technical. Obviously the foul by A does not meet these criteria for cancellation. The fact that there is no provision in place to cancel most fouls occurring after a CE implies to me that "change of team possession" does not necessarily require opponents to gain possession.

At a minimum, I think a "change of team possession" requires a team to have TC at the time of or following the moment the CE occurs and the team must then lose TC before the CE is identified. I think the correct adjudication here is to award A their merited FT and resume at POI with B's FTs. If the CE is identified before the foul occurs and before B loses TC for any reason (like when B is first bringing the ball into the FC after the rebound), then 2-10-6 should apply and the second FT should be shot as normal.

JMO

[Sharpshooternes]

This is how I think about it with a little bit of logical sense: if you use the OP scenario and
1) A rebounds no change in possession. Blow it dead, a shoots the last free throw and play resumes.
2) a rebounds and makes another bucket( now we have change in possession), blow it dead. A shoots FT with lane cleared and then b1 can make a throw in from anywhere along the end line.
3) B rebounds ( change in possession), blow it dead. A shoots second free throw with lane cleared. B gets the ball back at spot closest to where it was recognized.
4) b rebounds (change in possession) goes down and is fouled on a shot by A that goes. Bucket counts, a shots merited free throw with lanes cleared and then b shots and 1 with lanes occupied and play resumes from here.

I think the biggest take away for me is that it is unfair to take away the clear advantage of one team because crew/table made a mistake. B earned the rebound and the bucket. Now we just go back and give A what it was due. And then pick up where we left off.

[bob jenkins]

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.

[La Rikardo]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

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 possession. So, imo, being fouled and entitled to either a throw-in or FTs should also meet the "change of possession" 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".

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Sharpshooternes

This is how I think about it with a little bit of logical sense: if you use the OP scenario and
1) A rebounds no change in possession. Blow it dead, a shoots the last free throw and play resumes.
2) a rebounds and makes another bucket( now we have change in possession), blow it dead. A shoots FT with lane cleared and then b1 can make a throw in from anywhere along the end line.
3) B rebounds ( change in possession), blow it dead. A shoots second free throw with lane cleared. B gets the ball back at spot closest to where it was recognized.
4) b rebounds (change in possession) goes down and is fouled on a shot by A that goes. Bucket counts, a shots merited free throw with lanes cleared and then b shots and 1 with lanes occupied and play resumes from here.

I think the biggest take away for me is that it is unfair to take away the clear advantage of one team because crew/table made a mistake. B earned the rebound and the bucket. Now we just go back and give A what it was due. And then pick up where we left off.

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.

[bob jenkins]

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).

[BigCat]

We know it is a change in possession. in the case play nfhs just declares that it isn't because when B is dribbling around with the ball the status quo really hasn't changed. if somebody blows a horn to stop the game in the middle they just want you to line them up and play on.

once a foul is committed or say a kicking violation on A then something else has happened that alters the status quo. A has done something wrong. NFHS then would hopefully, recognize the change of possession….that we knew already happened….

and as Badnews said, if you don't shoot Bs free throws you are nullifying additional activity.