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

2015-16 IAABO Refresher Exam

22. A-1 is fouled in the act of shooting and awarded two free throws. The first free throw is missed and the official allows the ball to remain in play. B-1 rebounds the ball and then commits a violation. The official now recognizes A-1 should have been given another free throw. The official awards A-1 his/her second free throw with no players along the lane and resumes play from the point of interruption. Is the official correct?

Answer Sheet: Yes.

I disagree, and believe that, "No", is the correct answer.

2-10-6: 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).

The situation in the question involves the awarding of a merited free throw to correct the error, and there has been no change of team possession. The official should have awarded A-1 his second free throw with players in the marked lane spaces, as after any free throw attempt.

What am I missing here?

Comments please.

I am confused. What do they mean by "B-1 rebounds the ball and then commits a violation?"

Would you not commit the violation first?

If there is a violation on B, you think shoot again the first FT and go from there.

Peace

The change of possession. Team B possessed the ball.

If Team A had secured the rebound, there'd have been no change of possession, so you'd just line them up and shoot the second.

In this instance, Team A is going to get the ball back (because of the violation by B) after the awarding of the second free throw.

B got the rebound and officials let them play on. B then violated. The violation means the ball will be team As. That is why the lane is cleared for A's other free throw. A will get the ball at the spot of the violation.

You're right, I just hate the administration.

This situation right here is all fault. Both or all 3 officials should not have gone brain dead.

There is actually a case play similar to this. In that play B gets the rebound and plays on. The case play actually says Bs rebound does NOT constitute a change in possession. it is the first play under correctable errors. the reason why this IS considered a change of possession is because B violated and so it will be A ball.

No Change In Possession ...
 

The error occurred when then ball was allowed to remain in play. After the error occurred, only Team B possessed the ball. There was no change in possession.

2-10-6: 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).

Team A attempting the FT and Team B gains control of the rebound. That equals a change of team possession as now the other team has the ball. Therefore, POI is the right place from which to continue after correcting the error.

B gets the rebound and travels / swings the elbows / steps OOB / double dribbles / stays in the lane for 3-seconds (on a long rebound) / passes the ball into the FC and the ball goes to the BC and is first touched by B / etc.

On the OP -- see case 2.10.1A. FWIW, I disagree with the case, but if you want to get the question right on the test, ...

That case play was written in the last three years, and sadly is wrong.

No Change In Possession ...
 

Team B violated, and then the error was discovered, before Team A got possession of the ball for a throw-in. Team A never got possession of the ball, so the was no change of possession.

Let's Go To The Videotape ...
 

2.10.1 SITUATION A: A1 is fouled and entitled to two free throws under the
double-bonus rule, however, the officials indicate a one-and-one bonus situation.
The first attempt is unsuccessful; B4 rebounds the ball and passes it up to B2.
The error is discovered with B2 in possession of the live ball near mid-court.
RULING: The error is discovered within the correctable error timeframe, and shall
be corrected. Team B securing the rebound and passing to a teammate constitutes
no change in team possession. Therefore, A1 will receive the merited free
throw with players on the lane and play resumes from the free throw. (2-10-1a)

When a team is entitled to a throw-in or FTs which have not yet taken place, that team is considered to have possession for CE purposes.

For example:
If your missed FT situation above had resulted in A2 and B3 simultaneously grabbing the rebound and creating a held ball, the AP arrow would determine whether or not players would be permitted along the lane for the 2nd FT. If the arrow favored Team A, then players would occupy the lane, but if it favored Team B, then the CE FT would be attempted with the lane spaces empty and the POI would be an AP throw-in to Team B.

Whose ball is it right now? Team A.

Quoting an incorrect ruling in the Case Book doesn't help your cause. You might as well cite the infamous backcourt interp!

agreed. billy take a look at 2.10.1 d and f. F is the AP play nevada cites above.

Team A Never Got Possession Of The Ball ...
 

Team A never got possession of the ball for a throwin, plus, if they did, it would be too late for the error to be correctable. The error must be corrected during the dead ball period immediately after Team B violates. If the officials hand to ball to Team A for a throwin, the ball becomes live, and the error is no longer correctable, it's too late to correct.

Let's Go To The Videotape ...
 

2.10.1 SITUATION D: A1 is fouled. Team A is awarded the ball out of bounds.
The foul was Team B’s seventh team foul and A1 should have been awarded a one
and one bonus. Team A scores on the ensuing throw-in. As the ball passes
through the net, the officials are informed of the error. RULING: The error is discovered
within the correctable error timeframe. Count the goal by A; A1 will be
awarded the bonus with no players along the lane lines. There has been a change
of possession and the point of interruption is the goal by Team A, therefore Team
B will be awarded a throw-in anywhere along the end line. (2-10-1a; 2-10-5)

2.10.1 SITUATION F: A1 is fouled. The scorer informs the official that Team B
has committed ten team fouls and that the two-free-throw penalty is in effect. The
official administers the free throw and states and indicates "two" throws. The first
free throw is unsuccessful and the second is successful. B1 has the ball out of
bounds for the throw-in. The scorer informs the official that there were only nine
team fouls on Team B and that the penalty should have been one and one. RULING:
The error is discovered within the correctable error timeframe, and shall be
corrected. The second free throw is canceled and play is resumed at the point of
interruption. Since “no goal” has been scored, play is resumed with an alternating-
possession throw-in at a spot nearest to where the ball was located when the
stoppage occurred. (2-10-1b; 2-10-6; 4-36-2c)

Situation F is an unmerited free throw and, thus, doesn't apply to the original question.

Exam / Case Play
 

For the Case play:

There is no team control during the shot prior to the rebound, therefore the rebound by B4 is not a change in possession. The rebound established the first possession since the error was made.


Exam
For #22, I would say that team A is entitled to the throw in, when the error was recognized. Therefore since there is a change in possession (Team B --> Team A), the lane is cleared for Team A's foul shot and ball is put back in play at the POI.

What you have above as F is E in my rules. F in mine is the ap arrow play. They both show that when the other team is entitled to inbound the ball that is enough. They dont have to actually pick up the ball. as you noted, it would be too late to correct the error if ball was at their disposal.

Outdated Casebook ...
 

Sorry, I'm using an outdated casebook from my hard drive.

no big deal. the arrow play should be somewhere near it.

Getting Closer To The Truth ...
 

Sounds logical.

I can be persuaded to lean this way if I can see a few more citations

I Have Always Depended Upon The Kindness Of Strangers (Blanche DuBois) ...
 

If somebody can help me get a 2015-16 PDF NFHS Rulebook, and Casebook, onto my hard drive, I would really appreciate it.

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 was never re-issued nor transitioned to the case book. What I'm talking about here is a firmly established and published case play.

We're Getting Hotter ...
 

You sound confident in your interpretation. Please convince me further with a few citations.

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.

Sure. Admittedly many of these cases involve a pending throw-in following a made basket vice a violation, but the assumption that possession has changed remains constant:

NFHS:
2.10.1D / 2.10.1F (as already discussed)

NCAAM (from the 2013-14 book):
AR 27
AR 28
AR 34 (same as 2.10.1A, basically)

.....and I'm sure there are a few in the NCAAW case book as well.

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. :rolleyes:

Possession begins when the infraction occurs. The ball, by rule, at that point, belongs to the team due the ball due the infraction. We just administer it at the time of the throw in.

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.

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).

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

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)."

Thank you both for the correction.

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...

I hate to admit it, but I would do the same thing. I don't have rules justification to cancel or ignore the foul on A, so in the spirit of administering penalties in the order in which the fouls occurred, I'd feel obliged to do it this way.

Makes me second guess what I'd do if B were NOT in the bonus.

Would be interesting to get an official NFHS interp on this.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't think 2.10.1A can survive.

You are both having difficulty with the administration because the Case Play is just wrong. If you accept that, then you won't have an issue.

i was reluctant to say a play that had been in the case book for a number of years was wrong. Playing it out further as i did this morning proves to me that it is wrong. i wanted to see if i was missing anything.

i dont see any way to save it.

No change in possession
 

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?

That's a lot simpler. Shoot A1's free throw with the lane clear, then line everybody up for A4's one-and-one.

Of course, me, I'll say I was blowing my whistle to kill the play b/c we had another free throw to shoot. ;)

The next question is how do we get here under the rules, to using the POI, when the rule says we dont use it if there isnt a change of possession?

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...

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

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

I'm at work. Had to poke my nose in here before going home later. [emoji6]

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

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

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!?

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."

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

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

Question 22
 

My answer is no. What is the correct answer?:confused: