2015-16 IAABO Refresher Exam Question #22 ...

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

Is there anything about ignoring the foul unless it's flagrant?

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

Only if the activity actually occurs during the erroneously awarded free throw. I've been part of a crew where we stretched that time frame to the rebounding activity after the free throw ended.

2-10 ART. 4

If the error is a free throw by the wrong player or at the wrong basket, or the awarding of an unmerited free throw, the free throw and the *activity during it, other than unsporting, flagrant, intentional or technical fouls, shall be canceled.

2-10 ART. 5

Points scored, consumed time and additional activity, which may occur prior to the recognition of an error, shall not be nullified...

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

Is there anything about ignoring the foul unless it's flagrant?

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

Not in this situation. See 2-10 and the differences between "awarding an unmerited FT" and "failing to award a merited FT."

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

Is there anything about ignoring the foul unless it's flagrant?

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

if its a Ft by wrong player, at wrong basket or unmerited FT "the activity during it is cancelled unless intentional, flagrant etc…

[BryanV21]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Not in this situation. See 2-10 and the differences between "awarding an unmerited FT" and "failing to award a merited FT."

I'm at work. Had to poke my nose in here before going home later.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by gslefeb

A1 is entitled to 2 free throws, after the first free throw the ball remains live. A4 rebounds and is fouled by B4. Team A is in the bonus.

Since there has been no change in possession. How is this administered?

Nevada, i would also go poi on this play as BNR said. authority for it would be 2-10-5...cant nullify additional activity (the foul). also set forth above by BNR. Do you agree? thx

[Refhoop]

Been following this thread and find it interesting!

It seems to me that any foul by team A is a team foul - if by rule, possession hasn't changed... There would be no consideration for team B to shoot free throws if any B player is fouled. All fouls by team A in the current situation would be team fouls (Team A still have possession).

Once the ball goes through the basket, we have a dead ball, so how can possession change?.
The fact that B1 grabbed the rebound and threw it up the floor doesn't mean team B had a "right" to possession.
Under normal circumstances of a made basket by A1... what if as the ball is passing through the hoop - A3 grabs the ball? Is that a change in possession?
Team B taking the ball, doesn't grant them possession - even if the official isn't aware of whats going on...
What say you!?

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by BigCat

Nevada, i would also go poi on this play as BNR said. authority for it would be 2-10-5...cant nullify additional activity (the foul). also set forth above by BNR. Do you agree? thx

Yes, the new foul cannot be ignored.
The officials must award the second FT with the lane cleared and then resume with the bonus FTs for A4 with the lane spaces occupied.

I see the problem with the wording of the rule though. I would alter it by inserting "and no foul or violation" between "possession" and "since."

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I see the problem with the wording of the rule though. I would alter it by inserting "and no foul or violation" between "possession" and "since."

I love that idea.

I would still not change 2.10.1A, but it could be expanded to include scenarios where the ball became dead due to a violation or foul after B got the rebound, as opposed to just the situation where B got the rebound and either the officials subsequently stopped play or B called a timeout.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I'll consult my previous rules and case books for the exact year the dubious case play appeared.

Meanwhile, I will disagree with your defense of the ruling in that Case Play. Let me put forth my understanding of how this should work. Since we agree with the premise that a team being entitled to a throw-in or FT constitutes team possession for CE purposes, this should make sense to you.

At the time of the error, which is incorrectly permitting the ball to remain live following the first FT, Team A is entitled to another FT. That means that when Team B rebounds the miss, team possession has now switched from Team A (entitled to FT) to Team B (grabbed the rebound). Therefore, the POI should be used to resume and Team B should be awarded a throw-in near the division line.

Since we have determined that fouls (other than article 4) go to the POI under 2-10-5 it brings me back to the question of 2.10.1A's validity. The play has been around a number of years and contains an emphatic statement, "team B securing rebound and passing…constitutes no change in team possession."

The CE case plays show that "change of possession" under 2-10-6 is determined by regular team/player control rules and POI principles. After a made basket, held ball when the arrow favors the defense, a turnover by the offense…there is a "change of possession" under 2-10-6 even though the other team does not have the ball at their disposal or control. Not only is the other team "entitled" to the ball in the plays, the throw-in IS the next thing that would happen. (POI).

On the front end of the play the error is allowing the ball to remain live. Team A might be "entitled" to another FT but not stopping the game is the error. The "possession" was skipped. There's no basis under regular player/team control rules/POI principles to say simply being "entitled" to another FT IS a possession. The team control/POI principles tell us neither team is in control at the time of the error. When they are talking about "change of possession since the error" I believe they are talking about the action that is actually taking place on the court. Not what was supposed to happen. We are trying to figure out how to get the ball back in play. That's a team control/poi issue.

Correctable errors are bad. I really don't have a personal preference on how the error is corrected. However, I see this case play that has been around and I see a rules basis for it. thx

[cyclocrossgirl]

My answer is no. What is the correct answer?