I'm not entertaining that conversation. "Free throw is over, there are no retroactive violations. Take up any further conversation with the VHSL".

You are worried way too much about hypothetical responses from the coach.

Wouldn't be a sh!tstorm. The game wasn't affected

"There is no violation. The R would not let them in the bottom spaces. That was his error. It is not a correctable error. 2-10. we are going to shoot the remaining free throws with players on the lane." the end...

Hmmmm, interesting response from a guy who is on a basketball forum talking basketball scenarios....

Thanks for the feedback.

I disagree with you completely. Hypothetical (or actual) situations that cause us to discuss the rules is what this forum is for.

Make the call or decision that needs to be made.

Seems too often (to me, imho) that your part of the conversation revolves too heavily around worrying about possible reactions from coaches. You shouldn't give a flip about any of that. And when coaches react, you should be able to support whatever ruling you've made. Being overly concerned with a possible sh!tstorm or a coach going ballistic shouldn't even enter your mind when making your officiating decisions.

Make your decisions ... without regard to potential coach reactions.

I think what he's trying to say is that we can go on and on and on about what a coach could possibly say, so perhaps we should stick to something a little more likely.

As Bob noted, we wouldn't even go to a (delayed) violation...not having Team B members in the first two spots (and not coming from a TO) would result in a T after directing the head coach to provide two members.

And since the administering official never directed the coach to provide two members to line up, there's no T to be had.

Well Mr. Steer (Actually I don't believe you are really a steer...anymore than I am a RookieDude):p

...but names can be deceiving.

The original post was asked of me when I was doing a pregame the other night. I have to admit, after 25 years of officiating, I couldn't come up with a rule reference to help the guys that posed the question.

Upon looking in the Case Book, I did find "OFFICIALS PROVIDE ERRONEOUS INFORMATION" 8.6.1

This does not cover the OP...but, IMO, it gives a philosophy of how we would handle this certain situation. "{Play should continue. 2-3}"

I was simply creating a discussion to find out if any other Official could give me a similar or even the same RULE REFERENCE that I found.

jtheUMP actually did say "points not covered in the rules".

JRUT...thanks for your honest response..."not sure" (I'm with you)

If any of you other big dogs (Adam, Nevada, Rich, rockyroad, etc.) have an actual rule or case reference...please let me know so I can pass it on to our association. Otherwise, I'm going with "Play On" 2-3. Missed or Made FT.

...I miss Jurassic....sigh.

i would tell your association it is not one of the listed correctable errors. 2-10. a-e. the free throw shot was merited. just didnt have the players in the lane. the similar case plays are the ones where free throws are shot in the wrong order...and the one where a player has gotten a 5th foul. while he is being replaced the other official allows player to shoot free throw.
both of these mention that the free throw was merited and the error is not a correctable error...it is an officials error.

No one seems to have noticed that the crew actually misapplied TWO rules.
According to 5-10-1 the REFEREE may correct an obvious timing mistake, so the U2 should have informed the R of the time that he observed and let the R go to the table to make the correction instead of going to the table himself. This would have prevented the FT problem as communication amongst the officials about the timing issue would have occurred prior to the FT administration.

I agree with this and these are the same rule references that I would use.
Others situation that I could conjure would be the officials awarding a throw-in to the wrong team or awarding a throw-in at the wrong spot. For example, an intentional personal foul occurs in the FT lane in the backcourt and following the FTs the crew administers the throw-in at the division line.
All of these are incorrect and mistakes by the officials, but none of them are correctable errors.

Yep, pretty simple.

Let him protest, it's stupid. When the shot was taken, there was no time on the clock. The timing error was fixed afterwards (timing errors can be fixed at any point before the game is over), so move on.

If the state recognizes that protest, quit.

Dan,

As for the OP...as others have said, there is no CE here. Miscommunication between partners is a mistake, but there is nothing to "fix". There really is no Case Play that I am aware of that would clearly cover this situation.

As for your twist on the OP...I don't believe the WIAA or the WOA would entertain a protest on this since - once again - it was a communication issue. To say that a rule was set aside or misapplied would be a huge stretch and I just don't see Mr. C and Mr. S buying that one.

It's an officiating forum, not a coach's forum. Why should a coach's response change anything? maybe it's my 31 years being associated with the military, sometimes somebody needs to take charge and not be concerned with the feedback.

This thread has clearly exceeded its initial purpose.