Correctable Error Question
 

If the correctable error is the failure to award a merited free throw, does it matter what stops the clock when the officials recognize the error?

A1 is fouled, B's 10th foul. We mistakenly award A1 1 & 1 and he misses the first; B rebounds, comes down the court and is fouled (entitled to shots, but I can't recall if 1 & 1 or shooting). As we report the foul, the table alerts us to the error. We go back to the other end, and A1 shoots his second FT with the lane filled, and play continues.

Rule 2-10-6 reads, "If an error is corrected, play shall be resumed from the POI to rectify the error, unless it involves awarding a merited FT(s) [as in my game] and there has been no change of possession since the error was made [again, as in my game, per 2.10.1 Situation A], in which case play shall resume as after any FT attempt(s)."

Casebook 2.10.1 Situation A is almost identical, except the error is brought to the officials' attention while B is bringing the ball upcourt. It goes on to say, "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." This is consistent with Rule 2-10-6.

Is A's foul "additional activity" under 2-10-5, that "shall not be nullified"? If so, what do you do with the FTs that B would normally have shot? If you clear the lane for A's shot, then go back to shoot B's FTs, then you are returning to the POI, despite the exception in 2-10-6. Is there a justification in the rules for differentiating between fouls, violations and nothing, when the clock stops and the error is addressed?

:eek: So what happened to the free throws B was entitled to at the other end of the court?

You don't consider B's rebound a change of possession? :confused:

Unfortunately, that Case Book situation ruling is dead wrong.
Team B gaining the rebound after Team A was shooting FTs absolutely is a change of possession and play should resume at the POI following the administration of the merited FT which was omitted.

Another gem from the NFHS. :(

According to 2.10.1 B., cited above, team B securing the rebound constitutes no change of possession, probably because during the free throw shot there is no team possession, just as during a field goal attempt.

I think "technically" there is no change in possession because there is no team-control during a free-throw but common sense tells me there is a change of possession. I bet it is one of those semantics things that they are awesome with...

As far as the situation, I think you have to go back and give the second shot with the lane cleared and then shoot the other 2 at the opposite end and resume play with that. I can't see any other way around it...

And that's precisely why the other team rebounding the ball definitely constitutes a change of possession. Silly monkeys!

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)?

The difference in interpretation/application seems to be in regards to 2-10-4, and whether the cancellation of activity during the free throw is specifically limited to the time used to shoot the free throw, ending when the free throw ends, which seems to be the basic intent of the statement, or the time involved until the error is corrected.
If the understanding is that the activities subject to cancellation are confined to during the free throw, then application of 2-10-5 would indicate that the subsequent foul at the other end would not be cancelled.
And 2-10-6 indicates that in the scenario being discussed, the POI would not be the unawarded free throw, but rather the point in the game following the stopage to make the correction.

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.

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.

Then what constitutes a change of possession?

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

I agree. B earned the ball by way of the rebound. I was not their possession before the rebound and was in their possession after it. That seems like a change to me.

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

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.

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.