Correctable error

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Right. As opposed to what YOU said.

I don't like the way the Rule is worded because CEs are not really penalties that are being carried over which as I stated in my tweaked play Team A does not receive the ball for a TI because it is part of the penalty for a IPF.

CEs are just that correcting an Error made by the Game Officials and the CE Rule only speaks in terms of Time Limits with not mention prohibiting the Time Limit spanning two Periods. That is why I do not like the wording of R5-6-S2, Exception 3. I guess I say tomaaato, and you say tomaahhto.

MTD, Sr.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

I can't remember off hand which rule it is but no penalty can carry over to another period. It has been like that for over 45 years.

MTD, Sr.

While that is true, it assumes the penalties are properly applied when they should be.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

While that is true, it assumes the penalties are properly applied when they should be.

Camron:

Read my clarification in Post #16.

MTD, Sr.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

I I guess I say tomaaato, and you say tomaahhto.

MTD, Sr.

We actually say tuh-may-ter. It's a Southern thing. You wouldn't understand.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by just another ref

We actually say tuh-may-ter. It's a Southern thing. You wouldn't understand.

I like it and yes I would understand.

MTD, Sr.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Camron:

Read my clarification in Post #16.

MTD, Sr.

Yep....saw that after I had replied to the earlier post.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

I don't like the way the Rule is worded because CEs are not really penalties that are being carried over which as I stated in my tweaked play Team A does not receive the ball for a TI because it is part of the penalty for a IPF.

CEs are just that correcting an Error made by the Game Officials and the CE Rule only speaks in terms of Time Limits with not mention prohibiting the Time Limit spanning two Periods. That is why I do not like the wording of R5-6-S2, Exception 3. I guess I say tomaaato, and you say tomaahhto.

MTD, Sr.

I don't agree with that. You have the right conclusion, but the wrong reason.
The reason that Team A does not receive a throw-in in addition to the two FTs is that a throw-in is not one of the five correctable errors, so BY RULE the officials may only award Team A it's merited FTs, but not also it's merited throw-in.

The fact that the CE time limit in such a case spans over two periods of play has absolutely no impact. To prove that simply consider the proper administration of the same CE during a single period of play. The officials would still correct the mistake by awarding only the FTs and not the subsequent throw-in. The game would be continued at the POI.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I don't agree with that. You have the right conclusion, but the wrong reason.

The reason that Team A does not receive a throw-in in addition to the two FTs is that a throw-in is not one of the five correctable errors, so BY RULE the officials may only award Team A it's merited FTs, but not also it's merited throw-in.

The fact that the CE time limit in such a case spans over two periods of play has absolutely no impact. To prove that simply consider the proper administration of the same CE during a single period of play. The officials would still correct the mistake by awarding only the FTs and not the subsequent throw-in. The game would be continued at the POI.

Nevada:

That is what I said only using less words (I can't believe I just said that, .).

MTD, Sr.

[BillyMac]

What did they do? Reset to zero when your posts hit one million?

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

That is what I said only using less words.

Which could be said about every single post that you've ever made on the Forum.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

What I meant that the FTs for the CE are considered part of the Period in which they should have been attempted.

A good example of a penalty not carrying over to the next period is B1 committing a IPF against A1 just before the Signal sound to end the First Quarter (NFHS) and First Half (NCAA M & W); and for the sake of disucssion we will assume the game is a game being player under NFHS Rules. The Team B has the AP Arrow. A1 will attempt two FTs with the FT Lane cleared before the one minute period between the First and Second Quarter. Team A will not receive the ball for a TI nearest the sport of B1's IPF to start the Second Quarter, but Team B will receive the ball at the Division Line opposite the Scorer's Table per the AP Arrow to start the Second Quarter.

MTD, Sr.

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

NFHS R5-S6-A2, Exception 3 really means that the penalty (meaning FTs but excluding TIs) for a CE can be applied in the next Period if the CE Time Limit has not expired.

Lets tweak the play that I described above. For some reason the Game Officials fell asleep and forgot to award A1 his/her two FTs until immediately after Team B had inbounded the AP TI to start the Second Quarter. A1 would attempt his two FTs but Team B would receive the Ball for a TI nearest the spot of the ball when the Officials stopped play to administer A1 his two FTs. Team A would not receive the Ball for a TI after A1's FTs as part of the Penalty for B1's IPF at the end of the First Quarter.

MTD, Sr.

After getting a good night's sleep, I came up with a play that is not a play on an Exam but is more likely happen in real life.


B1 fouls A1 as he attempts an unsuccessful 3-pt FG just prior to the Signal that ends the First Quarter. The AP Arrow is Team B's to start the Second Quarter.

A1 is awarded two rather than three FTs.

Immediately after B1 has inbounded the ball to B2 to start the Second Quarter, the Game Officials remember that A1 only attempted two FTs and not three.

A1 would attempt his third FT but Team B would receive the Ball for a TI nearest the spot of the ball when the Officials stopped play to administer A1 his two FTs. Team A would not receive the Ball for a TI after A1's FTs as part of the Penalty for B1's IPF at the end of the First Quarter.


The idea that the Game Officials would fall asleep and forget to award A1 two FTs before starting the Second Quarter is not plausible. LOL!!

MTD, Sr.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

After getting a good night's sleep, I came up with a play that is not a play on an Exam but is more likely happen in real life.


B1 INTENTIONALLY fouls A1 as he attempts an unsuccessful 3-pt FG just prior to the Signal that ends the First Quarter. The AP Arrow is Team B's to start the Second Quarter.

A1 is awarded two rather than three FTs.

Immediately after B1 has inbounded the ball to B2 to start the Second Quarter, the Game Officials remember that A1 only attempted two FTs and not three.

A1 would attempt his third FT but Team B would receive the Ball for a TI nearest the spot of the ball when the Officials stopped play to administer A1 his third FT. Team A would not receive the Ball for a TI after A1's FTs as part of the Penalty for B1's IPF at the end of the First Quarter.


The idea that the Game Officials would fall asleep and forget to award A1 two FTs before starting the Second Quarter is not plausible. LOL!!

MTD, Sr.

Fixed it for ya. Otherwise, good play construction.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Fixed it for ya. Otherwise, good play construction.

Thanks. Great minds think alike, LOL!

That is what I get for not taking my post-lunch nap before posting.

MTD, Sr.