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

[BillyMac]

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.

[JRutledge]

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

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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

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, ...

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

... see case 2.10.1A.

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)

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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)

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

[gslefeb]

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.

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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

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.

[cyclocrossgirl]

My answer is no. What is the correct answer?

[ODog]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

What am I missing here?

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.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by ODog

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.

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.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by ODog

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.

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.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by BigCat

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.

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

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BigCat

the reason why this IS considered a change of possession is because B violated and so it will be A ball.

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.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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.

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.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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.

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