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

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

We've had this debate before. Like it or not, the published NFHS interpretation is that the error occurs when the officials allow play to continue, which they do by letting players enter the lane to rebound during the free throw when there is no team control. So Team B getting the rebound is the first possession. This is why in the case play, when the error is discovered with Team B still in control, no change in possession has occurred.

I do agree with you that pending possession is assumed for CE purposes (i.e. the violation in the OP case, and your AP arrow example was also spot-on). Several case plays support this assumption.

By the way, the case play you claim is "incorrect" has been around a lot longer than three years. I remember being stumped by it as a rookie before the '97-'98 season. Perhaps they removed it for a few years, but if so, it had enough staying power to make a comeback. It is a good interpretation; just because it's counterintuitive doesn't give you the authority to declare it incorrect and confuse the multitude of younger officials who use this site to study and learn, especially this time of year.

Note: I realize that just the other day I disagreed with the "likely tenths of a second" interp. Go ahead, lay it on me.... But hey, at least that play is an old interp that never actually made it into the case book. What I'm talking about here is a firmly established and published case play.

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.

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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.

Not really because I don't agree that a team entitled to a FT constitutes team possession for CE purposes. Only a throw-in. There are several case plays that deal with the latter (I listed a few for BillyMac), but I don't know of any that deal with the former. If you can find one or more that do, I might at least acknowledge your argument instead of outright dismissing it.

[Camron Rust]

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.

I agree with Nevada's conclusion and thinking. It should have been A's ball for the FT, but the error lead to B getting the ball. That is a change of possession.

[Rob1968]

Is not the POI, the moment in play, at which the error is discovered/acknowledged, rather than the error itself? Therefore, in the case of a merited free throw that was not awarded, but now must be awarded, the POI is subsequent to that action, and requires/allows that the free throw be shot w/o players along the lane, and the time from when the error occurred to the moment the error was discovered, is not to be restored. Thus, play will resume at the POI, which is the awarded throw-in.
This seems to be the thought process of the Rules/Case play author(s).

[bob jenkins]

I'm a little foggy on this, but I don't think POI comes into play on CEs. There is "the spot where play was stopped to correct the error" (or some such words), but that's not necessarily POI (as defined). Maybe I'm just too tired.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

I'm a little foggy on this, but I don't think POI comes into play on CEs. There is "the spot where play was stopped to correct the error" (or some such words), but that's not necessarily POI (as defined). Maybe I'm just too tired.

The rule does say that if an error is corrected, play shall be resumed from the POI to rectify the error unless it involves awarding a merited FT and there has been no change in team possession since the error was made....

Bob, do you know how long that first case play has been in the case book? thx

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

I'm a little foggy on this, but I don't think POI comes into play on CEs. There is "the spot where play was stopped to correct the error" (or some such words), but that's not necessarily POI (as defined). Maybe I'm just too tired.

The language was changed when the NFHS adopted the POI rule and added its definition in Rule 4. That was about ten years ago.
Before that the choice of words was not referring to the definition of POI, but merely normal English language.

2004-05 wording:
". . . If an error is corrected, play shall be resumed from the point at which it was interrupted to rectify the error, unless it involves awarding a merited free throw(s) and there has been no change of team possession since the error was made, in which case play shall resume as after any free-throw attempt(s)."

2007-08 wording:
". . . If an error is corrected, play shall be resumed from the point of
interruption to rectify the error, unless it involves awarding a merited free
throw(s) and there has been no change of team possession since the error was
made, in which case play shall resume as after any free-throw attempt(s)."

[bob jenkins]

Thank you both for the correction.

[BigCat]

I'm giving myself a headache. Let me ask anybody this…

The correctable error rule says we go to the POI unless it involves awarding a merited FT and there has been no change of team possession since the error. if no change of team possession then resume it like any other FT attempt.

The case play 2.10.1A, we all know, says team B securing the rebound and passing to a teammate constitutes no change in team possession. You go back and shoot the free throw with lane spaces occupied.

Let's say the play goes further and team A fouls team B after the teammate catches the pass. lets say team B is in the bonus. so in this example the ball is not going to go to team A. (they are not entitled to throw in or FT). The ball is going to stay with team B. Has there been a "change of team possession." If there hasn't, I'm not supposed to go to the POI? But if i don't i can't deal with the foul by A?

I know what I would do…I would have A shoot their extra FT with lane spaces cleared and then line all players up for B 1 and 1 and play on. If the case play is correct about not being a change in possession how do i get to my result. (which is going to POI in the end)
maybe I'm having a complete and total brain cramp...

[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