Correctable Error: Incorrect Information by the Game Official.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

A member of our (MTD, Jr., and me) association (Wood Co. Bkb. Off. Assn.) asked me for a ruling on a play that had been given to him by one of the three officials involved in the play during a VAR game.


The Play: A1 drives to the basket and is fouled (called by the L) by B1 during a successful two-point FGA. The L does not see that the FGA is successful and neither does the C or T (). The L reports B1's foul and does not score the basket (CE, and , ). The administering official announces to the shooter and players in the FT lane spaces: two FTs. A1 attempts the first FT which was unsuccessful. While all of the other players stand motionless A2 grabs the rebound and shoots a successful two-point FGA. At this point the administering official realizes that A1 has a second FTA to shoot. The three officials huddle and decide to get help from the Scorer who tells them that A1's FGA was successful. The officials realize that their failure to award Team A two points for A1's successful FGA was a CE and that the CE Time Limit had not expired. The officials award Team A two points for A1's FGA. Therefore, A1 should have been awarded one FTA and since she was awarded and attempted only one FTA, A2's FGA for two points should also be scored. And that Team B should be awarded a TI anywhere along the end line in Team B's backcourt.


Our Secretary's question was: Were the officials correct?


We have contradictory (or dueling) Casebook Plays.

From the 2014-15 NFHS Basketball Casebook there are two CB Plays that apply to the OP. The first one is from Rule Two; the second one is from Rule 8 and is divided into three sub-situations with the first two addressing the OP and the first one also in direct conflict with the CB Play from Rule 2. they are:


2.10.1 Situation I: A1 is fouled by B1 while in the act of shooting and the try or tap is successful. The administering official erroneously awards and announces two free throws instead of one. A1’s first attempt is unsuccessful and B1 rebounds. Play continues briefly with B1 advancing the ball before the official recognizes the error and stops play. Ruling: Since A1 has attempted the merited free throw he/she was entitled to, there is no further correction to be made. Play shall resume with a throw-in by Team B at the out-of-bounds spot nearest to where play was interrupted. [R2-S10]

8.6.1 Situation (a) and (b): A1 is about to attempt the first of a one-and-one free throw situation. The administering official steps in and erroneously informs [the] players that two free throws will be taken. A1's first attempt is unsuccessful. The missed free throw is rebounded by: (a) B1, with all other players motionless in anticipation of another throw; (b) A2, with all other players motionless in anticipation of another throw. The officials recognize their error at this point. Ruling: In (a) and (b), the official's error clearly put one team at a disadvantage (players stood motionless and didn't attempt to rebound). Play should be ruled dead immediately and resumed using the alternating procedure. (R2-S3; R2-S10)


8.6.1 Situation (c): A1 is about to attempt the first of a one-and-one free throw situation. The administering official steps in and erroneously informs [the] players that two free throws will be taken. A1's first attempt is unsuccessful. The missed free throw is rebounded by: (c) B2, with several players from both teams attempting to secure the rebound. The officials recognize their error at this point. Ruling: In (c), both teams made an attempt to rebound despite the official's error and had an equal opportunity to gain possession of the rebound. Play should continue. (R2-S3; R2-S10)


From memory I "quoted" CB Play 2.10.1 Situation I, and MTD, Jr., "quoted" CB Play 8.6.1 Situation (a) and (b).

All of the CB Plays agree that no CE occurred because A1 attempted the correct number of FTs even though the administering official announced the incorrect number of FTs to be attempted. But we have a conundrum: CB Play 2.10.1 Sit. I does not state whether or not we have confused players, but CB Play 8.6.1 (a), (b), and (c) does state that we have confused players (and I should add, that its heading is: "Officials Provide Erroneous Information").

I will be honest in that I lean toward CB Play 2.10.1 Sit. I because I have an extreme aversion to the AP Arrow. But of CB Play 8.6.1's heading I would have to say that CB Play 8.6.1 (a) and (b) would be the governing CB Play.

MTD, Sr.

[frezer11]

Youch! Considering the originally described play and each of the cases, I think I'd cancel the basket and go AP. Regardless of what happened, an official's error in communication lead to one team being at a distinct disadvantage. I'll take some heat from the coach, and I understand that, but I think I can defend those actions from 8.6.1 a), and b).

[Nevadaref]

The original goal by A1 when he was fouled by B1 which was erroneously not counted is a correctable error and shall now be scored.
The second goal by A1 following the missed FTA is not scored as the officials clearly placed Team B at a disadvantage by providing incorrect information. This is not a correctable error. However, it is a mistake by the officials which has a specific remedy in the Case Book. That ruling should now be followed. Play is resumed with an AP arrow throw-in.

[bob jenkins]

Since the 8.6.1case p;lays are specific about the number of players attempting to rebound and the 2.10.1 case play isn't, I'd assume (yeah, I know) that "all" the players attempted to rebound in the 2.10.1 play to make it consistent.

Go to the arrow in MTD's play.

[just another ref]

No matter how many players try/don't try to rebound, if the official didn't count the basket and announced two shots, this is a free throw which is to be followed by another free throw. When it comes off the rim, this ball is dead.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by just another ref

No matter how many players try/don't try to rebound, if the official didn't count the basket and announced two shots, this is a free throw which is to be followed by another free throw. When it comes off the rim, this ball is dead.

You can certainly argue that position, but you will be fighting several NFHS case book rulings stating either that the officials mistakenly allowed the ball to remain live following an announced first FT or that the officials shall whistle the play dead. According to those rulings the ball doesn't automatically become dead if the officials aren't diligent. It certainly doesn't become dead if both teams attempt to rebound despite the erroneous information provided. That ruling is posted above in this thread!

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

You can certainly argue that position, but you will be fighting several NFHS case book rulings stating either that the officials mistakenly allowed the ball to remain live following an announced first FT or that the officials shall whistle the play dead. According to those rulings the ball doesn't automatically become dead if the officials aren't diligent. It certainly doesn't become dead if both teams attempt to rebound despite the erroneous information provided. That ruling is posted above in this thread!

The case plays have one important difference. It says erroneous information was given. In the OP, the failure to count the basket was the error, not the number of free throws. If the basket was not scored, two free throws were the correct number awarded. When the first was missed, the ball is dead.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by just another ref

The case plays have one important difference. It says erroneous information was given. In the OP, the failure to count the basket was the error, not the number of free throws. If the basket was not scored, two free throws were the correct number awarded. When the first was missed, the ball is dead.

I agree; despite my previous post.

Then, when the error of not counting the original try is correct, go to the arrow.

[La Rikardo]

The way I see it, two correctable errors occurred. First, a score was erroneously canceled. Second, an unmerited free throw was awarded. By failing to count the goal, the official also awarded an unmerited free throw, even though that free throw never began.

Because the penalty for the personal foul was two free throws, the ball was to become dead after the end of the first free throw. When the officials correct both errors, play is to resume from the point of interruption with an AP throw-in because no goal, infraction, or end of period was involved when the game was interrupted.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by just another ref

The case plays have one important difference. It says erroneous information was given. In the OP, the failure to count the basket was the error, not the number of free throws. If the basket was not scored, two free throws were the correct number awarded. When the first was missed, the ball is dead.

The official telling the players two free throws was still an official's mistake. The previous error error of failing to score the try when the foul occurred does not make awarding two free throws now correct. It is not as if the official specifically waved off the basket and stated that the foul was prior to the act of shooting. He simply failed to inform the scorer to count the goal.

Originally Posted by La Rikardo

The way I see it, two correctable errors occurred. First, a score was erroneously canceled. Second, an unmerited free throw was awarded. By failing to count the goal, the official also awarded an unmerited free throw, even though that free throw never began.

Despite the official telling the players that there will be two free throws, an unmerited free throw was never awarded. Verbally stating the number of free throws does not equate to actually awarding a free throw and making the ball live for it by putting the ball at the disposal of the free thrower.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

The official telling the players two free throws was still an official's mistake. The previous error error of failing to score the try when the foul occurred does not make awarding two free throws now correct. It is not as if the official specifically waved off the basket and stated that the foul was prior to the act of shooting. He simply failed to inform the scorer to count the goal.

The sin of omission in this case produces the same result. It is not that the official forgot to make the signal. None of the officials saw the shot go in, and apparently they assumed for some reason that it did not. This was indeed a perfect storm in that nobody at the table, and no player or coach inquired: "DOES THE BUCKET COUNT?" Player at the line with no basket scored, he is entitled to two free throws.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by just another ref

The sin of omission in this case produces the same result. It is not that the official forgot to make the signal. None of the officials saw the shot go in, and apparently they assumed for some reason that it did not. This was indeed a perfect storm in that nobody at the table, and no player or coach inquired: "DOES THE BUCKET COUNT?" Player at the line with no basket scored, he is entitled to two free throws.

The official telling A1 that he/she has been awarded two FTAs is not a CE unless A1 attempts both FTs. Since A1 only shot one FTA then there was no CE of awarding an unmeritted FT. The CB Plays state that.

MTD, Sr.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

The official telling A1 that he/she has been awarded two FTAs is not a CE unless A1 attempts both FTs.

It is my position that if the basket is not scored, awarding two free throws is not an error at all.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by just another ref

It is my position that if the basket is not scored, awarding two free throws is not an error at all.

Your argument is tantamount to saying that one mistake justifies another. That is flawed logic and cannot be correct.

The truth is that mistakenly awarding an improper number of FTs is still an error, even if the official believes that he is doing so correctly.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by just another ref

It is my position that if the basket is not scored, awarding two free throws is not an error at all.

It only becomes a CE if A1 does indeed attempts the second FT. And it can only be corrected, in the OP, if the CE of failure to award points is discovered before the CE time limit expires. The CE of failure to award points was discovered before the CE time limit expired and before the second FT was attempted.

MTD, Sr.