The Case Of The Missing Point:
How Will Judge Wapner Decide?--(Jan 10, 2001)

The El Segundo v. Torrance game played on Wednesday in the Ocean League had an interesting outcome, which has yet to be resolved. We think we know the answer (and no, it's not just that the officials blew it)....we think when all the smoke clears, that the ruling will be that the final score is:  "South Torrance 47, El Segundo 46."   Why do we say that?  First, we have no axe to grind either way, and who wins is not important to us (we recognize it's very important to both teams, but we are completely disinterested and nuetral...really).

First, the facts:   The LA Times' report of the game was as follows:

El Segundo vs. South Torrance --The result of this game has not been made official, according to El Segundo coach Rick Sabowsky. Dashawn Strong scored the final points of the game with 3.9 seconds left to give El Segundo a 48-47 victory, according to the scoreboard. However, at the end of the game, the scorebooks of both teams had South Torrance leading, 47-46. However, if the coaches for both teams cannot agree on the final score, Sabowsky said that Ocean League officials would have to rule on the outcome of the game.

The Torrance Daily Breeze had a slightly more detailed account of what transpired:

A difference between the official scorekeeper's score and the scoreboard resulted in a protest of an Ocean League boys basketball game between El Segundo and host South Torrance on Wednesday.  The scoreboard showed El Segundo winning, 48-47, after Dashon Strong made a basket with three seconds left, but both coaches were later called out of the locker rooms. El Segundo coach Rick Sabosky and South Torrance coach Lamont Henry agreed to protest the game after the official scorecards from both teams had South Torrance winning, 47-46.

After reviewing the scorebooks, the official scoring for the game, Sabosky found that a free throw made by Strong in the fourth was omitted, tying the game at 47. The game is currently listed as a tie with a protest to be settled.   After watching the game film, Sabosky said it was not a free throw, but a basket by Strong that was omitted by both teams' scorers. Strong made four baskets, making the score El Segundo 48, South Torrance 47, but was credited with only three.

“All we did was sit in the gym and check off each score in the fourth quarter,” Sabosky said. “When we got to the last one, all the scores were checked off (in the scorebook), it was one of his baskets.”  Sabosky was told by head official Ken Wilson that if the coaches can agree to the outcome, a decision by CIF will not be necessary. “We watched the film with a coach from South. I think Lamont realized it, but there was a mistake in the books,” Sabosky said. “Wilson said to me, `If the coaches can't not agree, then it has to go to the league.' ”  Both teams were called out from the locker room and asked by officials if they wanted to play overtime. South Torrance agreed, but El Segundo refused and the referees sided with El Segundo, saying the players were cooled down and risked injury if they played. “One referee said that in his 31 years as an official, he had never seen an incident like this,” Henry said. “I haven't either. I'd rather we played (overtime) and get it over with. But, I can see where he's coming from, because he thought he'd won the game.”

Ok, now here are the rules:

California CIF games are governed by the National Federation of High Schools rules of Basketball.   California has a few special rules that are set forth in the CIF Bylaws pertaining to each sport, but trust us, there's nothing in them which contradicts or varies the rules contained in the 2001-02 NFHS Basketball Rules Book on the subject at hand.

So let's start with first principles:  What are the duties of the referee.  Easy, right?  Ok, let's review Rule 2 "Officials and their Duties":

In a two man crew, one is the "referee" and the other is an umpire (in a three man crew, there is a referee and two umpires), who are assisted by two timers and two scorers.  (Rule 2, Section 1, Art. 1).  What is the official's jurisdiction?  During the game, they make decisions for infractions of the rules (Sec. 2, Art. 1), and their jurisdiction begins when they arrive on the floor, which is supposed to be at least 15 minutes before the scheduled start of the game (Sec. 2, Art. 2).   Their jurisdiction continues throughout the game (Sec. 2, Art. 3), but here's the kicker:  "The jurisdiction of the officials is terminated and the final score has been approved when the referee leaves the visual confines of the playing area." (Sec. 2, Art. 4)

In other words, the final score is deemed to be accepted and may no longer be changed (even if there is an error) when the referee leaves the floor after the game is declared over.  Period.

What can the referee do during the game when there has been an error in scorekeeping?  Let's review Rule 2, Section 10, "Correctable Errors":

    "Art. 1....Officials may correct an error if a rule is inadvertently set aside and results in:

        a.  Failure to awared a merited free throw.

        b. Awarding an unmerited free throw.

        * * * *

        e.  Erroneously counting or canceling a score.

Ok, so far so good, right?.  The error alleged,   which as noted above, was either omitting a free throw or erroneously canceling a score, can be corrected by an official, right?  Well, it's all a matter of timing.   As in when the error is brought to the attention of the referee.  

Rule 2, Section 10, Article 2 provides that:

"In order to correct any of the officials' errors listed in Article 1, such error must be recognized by an official during the first dead ball after the clock has properly started.  

Note the use of the mandatory "must" (as opposed to the permissive "may").  "Must" as used herein, is the same as "shall," i.e., if the error isn't recognized at that time, it is no longer correctable.

Further, Rule 2, Section 11, Article 11, which deals with the "scorekeepers official duties" provides that it is the scorekeepers' duties (note the use of the plural) to do all of the following:

"Compare their records after each goal, each foul, each charged time-out and end of each quarter and extra period, notifying the referee at once of any discrepancy.  If the mistake cannot be found the referee shall accept the record of the official scorebook, unless he/she has knowledge which permits him/her to decide otherwise.  If the discrepancy is in the score and the mistake is not resolved, the referee shall accept the progressive team totals of the official scorebook.   A bookeeping mistake may be corrected at any time until the referee approves the final score.  The scorebook of the home team shall be the official book, unless the referee rules otherwise.  The official scorebook shall remain at the scorer's table throughout the game, including all intermissions."

Ok, now that we've reviewed the facts and the rules, what's the final ruling? 

1.  First, the official scoreboard (i.e, the lighted display) is irrelevant.  The fact that it conflicts with the scorebook(s) is a red-herring.  It's a trick, designed to distract from the real issue.  The lighted scoreboard is not relevant. Only the scorebook counts. 

2.  The error noted by the El Segundo coaches, i.e., the failure to award a basket,  is a correctable error within Rule 2, Section 10,   but such an error can only be corrected before play starts after the next deadball.  

3.  Likewise, the rules provide that the scorekeepers are charged with the duty of comparing their records after each goal.  Obviously, they didn't do this during the time when they were charged with such duty.

4.  While the error might also be considered a "bookeeping" error, which can be corrected at any time until the referee approves the final score, since the error was not corrected within the time permitted, i.e., within the next deadball before play resumed after the error in scoring occurred,   the referee had no discretion to decide differently unless he had knowledge of the error based on his own recollection. If he didn't have such knowledge,   then he is required (must) accept the official scorekeeper's record contained in the official scorebook.  He cannot simply disregard it unless he knows when and where the missing basket should have been awarded and to whom.

5.  If the referee cannot correct the error in the manner specified, he must  "accept the progressive team totals of the official scorebook."  There is no room in the rules to end a game on a "tie"and there is no room in the rules for the referee to defer his decision to a later time, i.e.,  after he leaves the "confines of the playing area."  Once that happens, the referee's jurisdiction ends, and the final score is deemed approved and accepted, and the game is over.  The error is no longer "correctable." 

6.  In this case, both the scorebooks kept by both teams (including the official book) showed South Torrance winning 47-46.

Ruling:  On the basis of all the above, South Torrance wins, 47-46.

But that's not the last word. 

7.  Assuming that the referee had not left the confines of the playing area, and the score had not yet been "accepted" as contained in the official scorebook, and it was corrected (albeit erroneously and in an untimely fashion) such that the official ruled there to be a tied score at the end of regulation, then an overtime period was required to be played.

8.  But that's not what happened.  Instead, the coaches decided to "protest" the game, and forego the overtime.  One problem with that approach though is that "The NFHS Basketball Rules Committee does not recognize protests."   (Rule 5, Section 4, Art. 2 ). 

Rule 5, Section 4, ("Forfeiture, Protest, Interrupted Game") provides in Section 4, Article 1, that "The referee shall forfeit the game if a team refuses to play after being instructed to do so by any official."  

Notwithstanding the claims that the players were no longer "warmed up"  the proper ruling should have been (assuming the referee in fact determined the score to be tied), to require the teams to play, and in the event one team refused to do so, the game should have been declared a forfeit by that team.

Lastly, the rules do provide (Rule 5, Section 4, Art. 3) that when the game is "interrupted because of events beyond the control of the responsible administrative authorities, it shall be continued from the point of interruption unless the teams agree to terminate the game with the existing score, or there are conference, league or state association rules to cover the situation..."

This "interruption" rule of course conflicts in this situation with the rule that ends the officials' jurisdiction when they leave the confines of the playing area, and it also assumes that the "interruption" was beyond anyone's control (i.e., flood, fire, earthquake, riot....), which doesn't seem to be the case here.  In this case, one or both teams just decided to stop playing and to "protest" the referee's decision.

Bottom line:  Bad decisions by the refs. Sloppy scorekeeping and a failure to understand scorekeepers' responsibilities, referee's limits of jurisdiction, and the fact that CIF rules do not provide for "protests."    Bad decisions and execution all around.   And the only ones who weren't involved in creating this fiasco were the players, who simply wanted to decide the game on the floor.  What a shame.....

 
©Copyright SoCalHoops 1997-2002
Questions? Comments? Need Information?
Contact: jegesq@SoCalHoops.com