FED Exam Strikes Again
 

This question appeared twice. I guess it's very important we all know what a MF is since it gets called so often.

A situation in which two or more teammates commit personal fouls against the same opponent at approximately the same time is known as:

A) A multiple foul.
B) A double foul.
C) A simultaneous foul.
D) An intentional foul.
E) A false double foul.

The premise of this question is wrong as the act described in the question is BI, not GT.

If a goaltending violation is penalized for touching the ball entering the basket from below:

A) The basket counts if the violation is by the defense.
B) No points are scored, regardless of the violating team.
C) The ball is awarded to a team based on the alternating-possession arrow.
D) None of the above.

Is there anything in the Case Book that defines "legally enters the court" as having both feet on the court?

A substitute becomes a player when:

A) He/she reports to the scorer.
B) He/she has both feet inside the playing court.
C) He/she is beckoned onto the court by an official.
D) All of the above.

I am pretty sure I got this one wrong.

It is an out-of-bounds violation if a player:

A) Leaves the court to avoid a screen.
B) Leaves the court to avoid a foul.
C) Leaves the court to avoid teammates.
D) All of the above.
E) None of the above.

It was awful. I never collaborate (I don’t believe in doing that) and got a 92%. That’s by far my lowest score in a decade. I attribute it all to lousily worded questions.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yep. I got my lowest score in a few years, too.

The Part 2 Exam was stupid as well. Glad my main state stays away from this test and has for over 10 years.

Peace

Poorly Worded Questions ...
 

Speaking of poorly worded questions.

I got an IAABO "you make the call" video today. The situation was illegal live ball contact on a shooter that may, or may not, have been excessive.

The question had only two choices for an answer: intentional foul, or personal foul, as if they're mutually exclusive.

An intentional foul can be personal foul.

I deemed the contact to not be excessive and answered personal foul.

Even if I had ruled an excessive contact intentional foul, that would still be a personal foul, so technically personal foul wouldn't be wrong.

I really dont get why they try this too cute by half crap, especially when there is lower hanging fruit that can waste half an hour at local rules meetings. It can be fun exercises sometimes on the ride up to a game, in locker room for pregame, or to torture the rookies, or bar after the game.

Just glad that after getting your varsity classification here, we dont have to worry about those tests anymore.

Watched our online state rules meeting and in going over the POE this year, the infamous 2012 above the shoulder contact POE was brought back up. Too bad its still not codified and you have to do some digging to find the thing.( on arbiter here if you need a refresher: https://www1.arbitersports.com/Group...%20Outline.pdf)

I don't think they try to trick test takers, I think FED is just so poor at writing and editing material as evidenced by the "contact above the shoulders" POE that never made it into the book that your state is supposed to be enforcing - just one of many examples.

That, and there is always a plethora of dumb questions about multiple fouls and the diameter of the rim that no one cares about.

Contact Above The Shoulders ...
 

Contact Above The Shoulders

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1...it?usp=sharing

If FED wants it enforced that way they need to put it in the rules and not require us to rely on 8-year-old interps. Simple as that.

Games People Play, Joe South, 1968 ...
 

Agree. Stupid NFHS.

No rule NFHS can come up with can be worse than swimming and diving's suit rule. "The suit shall cover the buttocks for men and the buttocks and breasts for women."

Who is going to enforce this rule? The answer, someone who wants their officiating career to end that day (as evidenced by last years brown storm in Alaska over this rule). There are only two possible results from this rule being enforced. The official who makes the call will be black listed because of the appearance having them on deck will portray, or someone will try filing some sort of complaint against said official who will have to defend his/her name in the court of public opinion, if not the court of law.

NFHS can make a rule that a dunk is worth 20 points and it would not be as stupid as the swimming and diving suit rule. That rule is the king, queen and emperor of stupid rules. The fact they didn't get rid of the rule after the storm from last year says all we need to know about the NFHS.

Why is this rule stupid? AFAIK, when it was made, there was a valid reason behind it, to preserve modesty. Or is the rule stupid because enforcing it would cause a sh#storm? If the latter, then skinny-dipping should be legal per NFHS rules (not that it would be advisable) :p.

The second question is inane. What purpose does it serve? You can't have goaltending on a ball entering the basket from below, because it is not a try, just like you cannot have goaltending on a throw-in.

I agree with you on #3. A substitute becomes a player when he/she legally enters the court, or if (s)he entered the court illegally, when the ball becomes live. However, that answer is nowhere to be seen. In addition, as BillyMac mentions, the question where the answer choices include intentional foul and personal foul as mutually exclusive makes no sense, because an intentional foul can be a personal foul if committed while the ball is live, or a technical foul if committed while the ball is dead. NFHS should get their act together and hire an editor who knows both the English language and basketball. I'm sick and tired of seeing the same stupid and poorly-written questions showing up over and over again.

I experienced the same situation on this year's exam. I got a 94 which was my lowest score in awhile. I commented several times to several colleagues just how poorly worded the questions were this year. I had all of the questions that SC Official had in the OP. I guess that the NFHS didn't like my answers. Oh well? Moving on!

You can't?

Goaltending is only for tries. You can have BI on throwin and attempts at wrong goal.

Goaltending ...
 

Goaltending is when a player touches the ball during a try, or tap, while it is in its downward flight, entirely above the basket ring level, outside the imaginary cylinder above the ring, and has the possibility of entering the basket.

(Or a player touches the ball outside the cylinder during a free-throw attempt.)

Situation: Team A trails Team B 67 to 66 with 0.4 seconds left in the fourth period. A1 makes a throwin pass. Ball is in its downward flight, entirely above the basket ring level, outside the imaginary cylinder above the ring, has an excellent chance of entering the basket, and the ball is swatted to the floor by B1, followed by time expiring and the horn sounding in front of Team A's home crowd of 1,500 vociferous fans.

Whatcha got?

The end of the game and a police escort.

Ok, BI not GT. Thanks for clarifying.

Basket interference, score 2 points for A, A wins, game over. After awaarding the points for the basket interference by B, get out of Dodge.

Why would the game be over if it were BI?

(edited to clarify)

This is nothing. Ball is outside the cylinder, so no BI. Clock starts on B1’s legal touch and the game is over. Run off the court ... even in Massachusetts!

Other than touching the ball outside the cylinder while reaching through the basket from below, can you EVER have BI when the ball is outside the cylinder?

No you cannot. And it is not a try so it is not GT either.

Peace

Can I get a heehaw for this donkey answer?

You just awarded the win to the wrong team!

Seriously, give ilyazhito a break. He probably either overlooked the "outside the cylinder" or inadvertently read it as "inside."

Basket Interference ...
 

To be fair to ilyazhito, as stated by SC Official, there is one way that basket interference could have been correctly called. I never stated how B1 got to the ball.

I'm not any better than the NFHS or IAABO at writing good unambiguous questions.

4-6-3: Basket interference occurs when a player: Touches the ball outside the cylinder while reaching through the basket from below.

The Lights Went Out In Massachusetts (The Bee Gees, 1967) ...
 

Funny.

ODog: Care to explain for the newer Forum members who are not from Massachusetts who may fail to see any humor in this?

https://tse1.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.b...=0&w=257&h=174

The Mouse Ran Up The Clock ...
 

Is the game over? Would the clock start on the illegal touch?

5-9-4: If play is resumed by a throw-in, the clock must be started when the ball touches, or is legally touched by, a player on the court after it is released by the thrower.

Already asked (but not answered) up in post #22.

And, if this had been an AP throw-in, would the arrow switch?

Illegal Touch ...
 

If the arrow doesn't switch on an illegal kick, I don't believe that it would switch on an illegal touch.

4.42.5 SITUATION: Team A is awarded an alternating-possession throw-in. A1’s throw-in pass is illegally kicked by B2. RULING: As a result of B2’s kicking violation, Team A is awarded a new throw-in at the designated spot nearest to where the kicking violation (illegal touching) occurred. Since the alternating-possession throw-in had not been contacted legally, the throw-in has not ended and therefore, the arrow remains with Team A for the next alternating-possession throw-in. COMMENT: The kicking violation ends the alternating-possession throw-in and as a result, a non-alternating-possession throw-in is administered. When the ball is legally touched on the subsequent throw-in following the kicking violation, the arrow shall not be changed and shall remain with Team A. (6-4-5)

Fun With Jump Balls ...
 

How about an illegal tap on the way up by the jumper, or an illegal catch (as the first touch) by the jumper?

If the timer started clock, do we reset to 8:00 (or 4:00)?

Not unless the jumper punched the ball with a closed fist.

The point is that the touching itself is not illegal in these situations, rather it is that the touching infringes some other rule of the game.

There are only two ways of illegally contacting the ball which would result in the clock not starting and the AP arrow not being switched—a kick or strike with a fist.

For any other touching, the clock should start and then be quickly stopped upon the sounding of the official’s whistle which recognizes the violation (OOB, BI, illegal tap during a jump, etc.).

Re-Starting The Clock ...
 

I would like to see further discussion regarding this topic.

5-9: Re-Starting The Clock
ART. 1 After time has been out, the clock must be started when the official signals the clock to start. If the official neglects to signal, the timer is authorized to start the clock as per rule, unless an official specifically signals continued time-out.
ART. 2 If play is started or resumed by a jump ball, the clock must be started when the tossed ball is legally touched.
ART. 3 If a free throw is not successful and the ball is to remain live, the clock must be started when the ball touches or is touched by a player on the court.
ART. 4 If play is resumed by a throw-in, the clock must be started when the ball touches, or is legally touched by, a player on the court after it is released by the thrower.

1-point difference. If a ball legally enters the basket, and it is not a try, 2 points are awarded, even if the ball was released from outside the 3-point line. If A is down by 1 point and is awarded 2 points, they win by 1 point.

If the ball was illegally touched by B, causing basket interference, the game clock should not have started. B would receive the ball with a throw-in from the endline with time remaining due to the awarded points. If B legally swatted the ball while it was outside the cylinder, game over, B wins.

That is incorrect under NFHS rules. A touching which causes BI needs to be timed. You cannot say that it occurs with no time coming off the clock.

I wouldn't quite say that. I would say that it "may" be timed. If the official administering the throw is also the one calling the BI, they'd never chop time in, thus it is possible no time would come off the clock. That would be valid since the instant it is touched to cause BI it also causes the ball to become dead. However, it is also possible that two different officials may be involved where one indicates time should start and the other whistles the BI causing it to stop. It wouldn't be an error for the timer to start and stop it in that case.

If I’m the administering official, I’m chopping the clock and then blowing the whistle for the violation. Whatever time elapses before the timer can stop the clock is reasonable.

I believe that the NCAA rule is that a minimum of 0.3 seconds must come off the clock.

Yes, if the ball is legally touched. I cannot find that term defined.

Citations ???
 

In regard to a throwin situation, I respectfully disagree.

If play is resumed by a throw-in, the clock must be started when the ball touches, or is legally touched by, a player on the court after it is released by the thrower.

It is illegal for a player to touch the ball, ring, or net while the ball is on the ring or within the basket. It is illegal for a player to touch the ball if it is in the imaginary cylinder above the ring. It is illegal for a player to touch the ball outside the cylinder while reaching through the basket from below.

These three examples of basket interference all involve illegal touches.

In a throwin situation, clock should not have started, and it should be reset if it was erroneously started.

Nevadaref: Any rulebook, casebook, or annual interpretation citations to further your cause?

Important to point out that this is still not an NFHS rule. Yes, there is that interp from several years ago. But that’s it. It has never even appeared in the case book.

I don’t hate the interp. What I do hate is when it is misused or misunderstood. For example, I know too many officials who falsely use it as a reason to put 0.3 back on the clock when a shooting foul occurs right at the expiration of time for a period. As if they have a monitor in their head! Definite information is one thing; if you have a chance to look up and see ticks come after the whistle, that’s legit. But to arbitrarily put 0.3 on “just because” is wrong. You’d think there was something morally repulsive about having the free throws attempted with the lane spaces empty.

I get it: in the games we see on TV, the monitor can tell us the correct time, or prove that the foul occurred on the airborne shooter after an in-time release. We don’t have that luxury in high school. So without definite information, the time very well could expire on a bang-bang play. And there are rules and cases that tell us exactly how to handle that situation, none of which call for 0.3 to be put back on the clock.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Timing ...
 

Unfortunately, this casebook play doesn't give us any information about timing:

9.11.2 SITUATION C: Since it is a violation for thrower A1 to throw the ball directly into the basket from out of bounds, what happens if B1 touches the throw-in pass while the ball is in the cylinder above A’s basket? RULING: B1 is charged with basket interference and a two-point goal is scored. Team B is awarded the ball for a throw-in anywhere along the end lines as after a scored goal except the official shall place the ball at the disposal of a player of Team B for a throw-in from any point outside the end line. (4-6)

1996 NFHS Interpretations
SITUATION #16: Since it is a violation for thrower Al to throw the ball directly into the basket from out-of-bounds, what happens, if Bi touches the throw in pass while the ball is in the cylinder above A’s basket?
RULING: Bl is charged with basket interference and a 2-point goal is scored. Team B is awarded the ball for a throw-in anywhere along the end line as after a scored goal except the official shall place the ball at, the disposal of a player of Team B, for a throw-in from any point outside the end line. (9-2-7; 9414)

Allowance For The Touching ...
 

More Illegal Touches ...
 

If play is started or resumed by a jump ball, the clock must be started when the tossed ball is legally touched.

It is illegal for a jumper to touch the ball on the way up. It is illegal for a jumper to catch (as the first touch) the ball.

Clock should not have started, and it should be reset if it was erroneously started.

Clock Erroneously Started ...
 

On a throwin, if the first player to touch the ball after the throwin pass is made is out of bounds, that's an illegal touch.

Clock should not have started, and it should be reset if it was erroneously started.

I wouldn't expect any answer in regards to a citation, but I would expect a lot of lawyering.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

I’m with Billy. The ball must be touched legally for the clock to start and the throw-in to end. Touching the ball within the cylinder is not a legal touch. If time runs off the clock in my game we are correcting it.

Yeah, when the ball is touched legally. A ball touched within the cylinder is not a legal touch.

Even if you could argue the touch was legal, the violation is simultaneous to it. That means no time elapses.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Unfortunately at the college level, the philosophy is that you better put something back on the clock if you have a foul as time expires even if you’re not 100 percent sure. Hopefully someone has eyes on the clock as the whistle is blown so we can be supported under the “definite knowledge” rule. I’m very good at looking up at the clock on every whistle but I can’t say I’ve never been involved in putting a few tenths back on the clock “just because we have to.” It is frowned upon to shoot free throws with an empty lane.

It is a stupid philosophy that I’m not necessarily a fan of, but when in Rome...

Agree...What if there was 0.001 seconds really left when the foul occurred? It is certainly possible, albeit impossible to tell too. Putting time back just because it feels good is silly. It only shows that whoever dreamt that up really hasn't actually thought about it.

As well, since the violation causes the ball to become dead immediately, why would an official chop to start the clock when the ball just became dead? The “hand up” is also used to prevent the timer from starting the clock. So in this situation the violation occurs, the official keeps the hand up to prevent the starting of the clock, whistles and communicates the violation.

99 percent of timers are not watching for a chop - they are watching the ball to see when it's touched, whether legally or not. In this situation more than likely you are going to have some time erroneously run off and you will need to fix the clock.

I'm Mr. Meeseeks! Look At Me!...
 

Agree.

https://tse3.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.k...=0&w=288&h=163

If it were true that you must take time off for an illegally touching the call, coaches would be having their players try to illegally touch the throwins at the end of the game if they have the lead.

You are assuming the administering official is the same as the one calling the violation. That may or may not be the case.

Reset The Clock ...
 

Agree. Even so, you get together, discuss it, and reset the clock.

100% ok with doing it that way in your college game. Just please, if we’re working a high school game, don’t bring that college bravado with you and cause a scene at the end of a period.

I’ve had partners willing to go to blows on the court over this. They were all college guys who were certain they were correct when they were indeed not correct. Usually the best thing to do for the game is to capitulate and talk it over later. But I hate every time that happens.

I guess I need to start pregaming this.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Bob brought up this point and it correctly illustrates what the NFHS means by an illegal touch of the ball.

If there is an AP throw-in by Team A from the front court sideline with 8.4 seconds remaining in the game and the first touch of the passed ball occurs when B1 bats the ball out of the imaginary cylinder above the basket, would the AP-arrow switch?

The answer is yes. We have case book plays instructing us to switch the arrow when the first touch of a throw-in pass is by a player who has one foot touching out of bounds. This is the same thing. The player is contacting the ball while simultaneously committing a violation.

Again to be clear, the only illegal touches which do not start the clock or switch the arrow are a kick or punch of the ball. All other touchings of the ball are legal touches. The illegal act is the commission of some violation separate from the manner in which the ball is touched.

“Again to be clear...” Who died and made you the rule-giver?

I agree with your compelling argument that the BI is a legal touch in its own right, but you have not convinced me that a legal touch requires the consumption of playing time when it coincides with a violation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Would you care to cite some of these case book plays or rules that support your position?

Why are you speaking to me like it’s my philosophy I invented and advocate for? I specifically said I’m not a fan of it so I’m not sure why you’re spewing some nonsense about me bringing “college bravado” into high school game.

Or you could just be the Referee as only he is permitted to correct timing errors under NFHS rules.

The only R whose crew I’ve ever been on that was adamant we go to him first to correct the clock was a guy no one wanted to work with and no coaches wanted on their games.

I was speaking in general terms, not at you. Apologies if it came across that way. Ahh, the pitfalls of expressionless text!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I believe somebody posted up thread something about citations and lawyering ;)

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

That is cool. We can continue to have a discussion about it. Perhaps I will convince you or perhaps I won’t. Either way, it is always a pleasure to talk basketball officiating with you on this forum.

I’m not at home at the moment, but I’ll look up a few of them later and post them for everyone to see.

We already had this discussion with Nevada a few years ago and his was the only dissenting opinion in a courtroom with 50 judges.

He’s trying to sell it to us again but he forgets that the clientele in this forum is the same now as it was then!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I guess somebody here thinks one of the jumpers can grab a jump ball and the clock should start since the ball wasn't kicked or punched.

Would you trust that person to tell you when an AP arrow should or shouldn't be switched subsequent certain throw-ins?

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Yes, it should start. There is a segment of time which elapses prior to the official recognizing the violation and that should be time in a HS game. College and the NBA may have a different philosophy on such timing matters due to TV monitors and precision timing. The HS philosophy is that game action should be timed, unless a rule specifically states otherwise. One example, is a kicked ball violation on a throw-in. The NFHS made it explicitly clear several years ago that the clock was not to start on that.

I understand that I’m in the minority on this and that most people wouldn’t think twice about it being done either way as it is a small amount of time which isn’t going to impact the game, but that doesn’t make me incorrect, just overly precise.

There are certain duties that the R and not the U(s) should be doing. They are clearly listed in the rules. Having an R who actually adheres to the rules and does his duties doesn’t make him a jerk. One can handle things by the book in a nice way.

Generally the R is the most experienced or knowledgeable member of a crew and has been designated the R to display that through quality judgment in necessary situations. To have someone else step in and make those decisions probably isn’t best for the game or the postgame reports/complaints that may arise.

So I don’t see the problem with letting the designated person, the Referee, handle these matters. I do that when I’m am umpire. I will give the R info and he can apply it as he desires. When I’m the R, I listen to input from the U(s) and make the best decision that I can.

Personally, I wouldn’t want an Umpire correcting fouls or some other disputed item in the scorebook when I’m the R. That can only cause trouble for me.

NFHS Interps 2007-08
SITUATION 3: During an alternating-possession throw-in for Team A, thrower A1 passes the ball directly on the court where it contacts (a) A2 or (b) B2, while he/she is standing on a boundary line. RULING: Out-of-bounds violation on (a) A2; (b) B2. The player was touched by the ball while out of bounds, thereby ending the throw-in. The alternating-possession arrow is reversed and pointed toward Team B's basket when the throw-in ends (when A2/B2 is touched by the ball). A throw-in is awarded at a spot nearest the out-of-bounds violation for (a) Team B; (b) Team A. (4-42-5; 6-4-4; 9-2-2; 9-3-2)

Compare that play ruling to this one.

4.42.5 SITUATION: Team A is awarded an alternating- possession throw-in. A1’s throw-in pass is illegally kicked by B2. RULING: As a result of B2’s kicking violation, Team A is awarded a new throw-in at the designated spot nearest to where the kicking violation (illegal touching) occurred. Since the alternating-possession throw-in had not been contacted legally, the throw-in has not ended and therefore, the arrow remains with Team A for the next alternating-possession throw-in. COMMENT: The kicking violation ends the alternating-possession throw-in and as a result, a non- alternating-possession throw-in is administered. When the ball is legally touched on the subsequent throw-in following the kicking violation, the arrow shall not be changed and shall remain with Team A. (6-4-5)

Neither of those cases make any suggestion that time must come off the clock. The kick wouldn't, of course, but the touch while OOB is silent on the point. I think that only allows for the possibility of timing coming off the clock, not that time must come off the clock.

I agree with you as to there being certain duties that are the responsibility of the R. I pregame about informing me first if there needs to be a change to the book or score when I'm the R. And when I'm not the R, I go to my crew chief first with such information.

However, it is a faulty assumption to state the R is usually the most knowledgeable member of the crew. I might give you most experienced as the "usual", but definitely not usually the most knowledgeable.

Around here, the R is whoever wants it, whoever we can stick in the middle walking out on the court or the new guy.

King Of Interpretations ...
 

Nice situations Nevadaref.

Switching (or not switching) arrows; and starting (or not starting) clocks is a lot more interesting and complex than I thought.

While I'll stubbornly stick to not starting clocks on any and all illegal touches, I'm now more confused than ever on switching, or not switching, arrows.

https://tse4.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.6...=0&w=300&h=300

Certainly not the philosophy in the HS games I work, but if you say so...

"If you notice a clock error, get it fixed. I don't need you to come to me first."

That is the line used by almost every R in almost every pregame I've ever been in. Correcting the clock is not a "quality judgment."

In the case of the maverick official I referred to earlier, the only thing he was good at was taking the tests and memorizing the books. In South Carolina, that was good enough to be an R on some of the best games in the state. Once we got on the court he had no idea how to apply the intent of the rules, no play-calling skills, no concept of game management, and no ability to communicate with coaches and players. Guess which kind of official 99% of us would rather work with?

Neither of these case plays proves the point you are so sure you're right about.

All Hail To Massachusetts ...
 

I guess that ODog crawled back into his secret underground COVID bomb shelter.

Massachusetts officials have to observe the post-game handshake lines before leaving the visual confines of the court. I also believe that they lack the power to issue technical fouls during this time period.

I'm convinced this is one of those situations where he feels high school needs to be different from college just for the sake of being different, even though he has provided zero evidence that the rule or philosophy differs between the two levels.

Are you referring to the clock or the illegal touch definition?
Both of those are to demonstrate what the Fed considers illegal touching.

Defensive Team Commits A Violation During The Throw-In ...
 

Yes?

6-4: ART. 4 The direction of the possession arrow is reversed immediately after an alternating-possession throw-in ends. An alternating-possession throw-in ends when the throw-in ends as in 4-42-5.
ART. 5 The opportunity to make an alternating-possession throw-in is lost if the throw-in team violates. If either team fouls during an alternating possession throw-in, it does not cause the throw-in team to lose the possession arrow. If the defensive team commits a violation during the throw-in, the possession arrow is not switched.

4-42-5: The throw-in ends when:
a. The passed ball touches or is touched by another player inbounds.
b. The passed ball touches or is touched by another player out-of-bounds, except as in 7-5-7.
c. The throw-in team commits a throw-in violation.

A defensive violation switches the arrow here:

NFHS Interps 2007-08 SITUATION 3: During an alternating-possession throw-in for Team A, thrower A1 passes the ball directly on the court where it contacts (a) A2 or (b) B2, while he/she is standing on a boundary line. RULING: Out-of-bounds violation on (a) A2; (b) B2. The player was touched by the ball while out of bounds, thereby ending the throw-in. The alternating-possession arrow is reversed and pointed toward Team B's basket when the throw-in ends (when A2/B2 is touched by the ball). A throw-in is awarded at a spot nearest the out-of-bounds violation for (a) Team B; (b) Team A. (4-42-5; 6-4-4; 9-2-2; 9-3-2)

A defensive violation doesn't switch the arrow here:

4.42.5 SITUATION: Team A is awarded an alternating- possession throw-in. A1’s throw-in pass is illegally kicked by B2. RULING: As a result of B2’s kicking violation, Team A is awarded a new throw-in at the designated spot nearest to where the kicking violation (illegal touching) occurred. Since the alternating-possession throw-in had not been contacted legally, the throw-in has not ended and therefore, the arrow remains with Team A for the next alternating-possession throw-in. COMMENT: The kicking violation ends the alternating-possession throw-in and as a result, a non- alternating-possession throw-in is administered. When the ball is legally touched on the subsequent throw-in following the kicking violation, the arrow shall not be changed and shall remain with Team A. (6-4-5)

https://tse1.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.L...=0&w=217&h=190

Change The Arrow, Or Not ...
 

Part 2
 

Most of these questions are asked on previous exams, every other year. Keep a bank of them on a spreadsheet.:)