The Official Forum - Exam Question Thoughts

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)

- Basketball (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/)

- - Exam Question Thoughts (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/105177-exam-question-thoughts.html)

Dueling Interpretations ...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Valley Man (Post 1040032)

I think it is clear in the comment from the case book play 9.2.10 SIT A:In situations with the clock running and five or less seconds left in the game, a throw in plane violation or interfering with the ball following a goal shall be ignored if its only purpose is to stop the clock. However, if the tactic in any way interfere with the thrower's efforts to make a throw-in, a technical foul for delay shall be called even though no previous warning had been issued.

I fully understand what your'e saying, but ...

Quote:

Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 1040024)

There is a rule (Rule 10-1-5), and a casebook play (10.1.5 SITUATION D), that specifically state, in very clear terms, that we warn first when a player delays the game by interfering with the ball, by slapping it away, following a goal.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 1040023)

10-4-5-A: A player shall not: Delay the game by acts such as: Preventing the ball from being made live promptly or from being put in play.

10.1.5 SITUATION D: Immediately following a goal by A1, A3 slaps the ball
away so that Team B is unable to make a quick throw-in. RULING: The official
shall sound his/her whistle and go to the table to have the scorer record a team
warning for delay. The warning shall then be reported to the head coach of Team A.
Any subsequent delay by Team A shall result in a team technical foul charged
to Team A. (4-47-3)

So, based on 9.2.10 SIT A COMMENT: We charge a technical foul with four seconds left, but only warn (assuming no previous warning) with six seconds left?

Also, doesn't even a slight tap of the ball by Team A "interfere with the thrower's efforts to make a throw-in", and isn't even a slight tap's "only purpose ... to stop the clock"?

While I see Valley Man's point, I also fully agree with LRZ:

Quote:

Originally Posted by LRZ (Post 1040018)

This is one of those NFHS hair-splittings that don't make sense to me: how "unsporting" does conduct have to be to stop the clock and penalize? Where is the line between conduct that must be penalized, with the clock stopping, and conduct that must be ignored?

Quote:

Originally Posted by LRZ (Post 1040022)

How momentary is momentary? How delayed is delay versus prevent? I don't see the distinction being clear enough to provide an objective standard.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 1040033)

4-19-14: An unsporting foul is a noncontact technical foul which consists of unfair, unethical, dishonorable conduct or any behavior not in accordance with the spirit of fair play.

10-2-4: A team shall not: Commit an unsporting foul.

10-4-6: A player shall not: Commit an unsporting foul. This includes, but is not limited to, acts or conduct such as …

As LRZ points out, I would like a "more objective" standard from the NFHS.

Right now we've got a smorgasbord of delay, prevent, interfere, warning, technical foul, violation, unsporting, over/under five, stop clock, ignore, advantage/disadvantage, and egregious to choose from.

https://tse3.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.q...=0&w=300&h=300

Quote:

Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 1040035)

So, based on 9.2.10 SIT A COMMENT: We charge a technical foul with four seconds left, but only warn (assuming no previous warning) with six seconds left?

No...if it is enough to T at 4 seconds, it is enough to T at 4 minutes.

Sometimes, you just have to referee.

Unsporting Player Technical Foul ...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Camron Rust (Post 1040040)

No...if it is enough to T at 4 seconds, it is enough to T at 4 minutes. Sometimes, you just have to referee.

On a ball obviously premeditatedly and intentionally tossed into the bleachers (or kicked into the rafters) to stop the clock, or to allow the new defense to set up a press, regardless of score, or time remaining, I agree.

My immediate impulse in a real game would be to charge an unsporting player technical foul (and record a written delay warning) that doesn't have the requirement of a prior written warning.

Now change the situation to a ball slightly tapped away a few feet, which may not have been obviously intentional, or obviously premeditated, maybe add a little five second over/under for fun, or don't, and we may be entering a gray area? Maybe make this (just slightly tapped, not tossed, not kicked, not swatted "into the bleachers") a question on a written exam?

https://tse2.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.s...=0&w=369&h=174

Quote:

Originally Posted by Camron Rust (Post 1040040)

Sometimes, you just have to referee.

That's why we get paid the big bucks, not to take a written exam, but to get out on the court to officiate a real life game.

Quote:

Originally Posted by griblets (Post 1040012)

FL exam has the following question and there is controversy regarding the answer. I believe the correct answer is D per 9.2.10 Sit. A Comment. Apparently, the test is scored with B as the correct answer. I'm unconvinced. Am I wrong? As a local association rules interpreter, I seek interpretations to help explain to my local association.

Question:
Team A has the ball trailing 65-61 and no timeouts remaining. A1 makes a layup to cut the lead to 65-63 with :04 remaining on the clock. As the ball is falling to the floor after passing through the net, A1 knowing her team has no more timeouts, swats the ball into the bleachers. How would we administer this play?

Possible Answers:

B. This is an unsporting technical on A1. Team B will have two free throws taken by any legal player of their choosing followed by a throw-in at mid-court opposite the score table. There is no need for a delay of game warning in this play.

D. In situations with the clock running and :05 or less remaining in the game, interfering with the ball should be ignored if its only purpose is to stop the clock. The clock should be allowed to expire and the game ends with Team B winning 65-63.

Although not specifically stated in the exam question, in real time and under actual game conditions the horn is likely going to sound and the clock will display all 0's. I tried to read the first sentence of the exam question and couldn't even do that in 4 seconds. I just don't see it as probable that any of the three officials are going to mentally process the made basket; the ball falling to the floor; the ball being swatted; blow a whistle and give the stop-clock signal and with any degree of certainty be able to say what the clock read when the ball was swatted into the bleachers. Without definitive knowledge, you can't put time back on the clock. Without time on the clock, you wouldn't shoot the free throws and the game is over. If you do put time back on the clock then I believe you're just guessing and you deserve the wrath of the coach if his player misses both free throws, his team turns the ball over, and he loses on a buzzer-beater 3.

Quote:

Originally Posted by griblets (Post 1040012)

In situations with the clock running and :05 or less remaining in the game, interfering with the ball should be ignored if its only purpose is to stop the clock. The clock should be allowed to expire and the game ends with Team B winning 65-63.

9.3.3 SITUATION D: The score is tied 60-60 with four seconds remaining in the game. A1 has a fast break and is near the free-throw line on his/her way to an uncontested lay-up. B5 running down the court near the sideline, intentionally runs out of bounds in the hopes of getting a leaving-the-floor violation called. RULING: B5's intentional violation should be ignored and A1's activity should continue without interruption. COMMENT: Non-contact, away from the ball, illegal defensive violations (i.e. excessively swinging the elbows, leaving the floor for an unauthorized reason) specifically designed to stop the clock near the end of a period or take away a clear advantageous position by the offense should be temporarily ignored. The defensive team should not benefit from the tactic. If time is not a factor, the defense should be penalized with the violation or a technical foul for unsporting behavior. (10-1-8)

https://tse2.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.0...=0&w=241&h=169

Test tip,
If you see words like “swat” or “strikes” the answer is likely always to be the more severe penalty. They don’t ever want to allow a kid to swat or throw the ball into the stands.
Now, at my age...with clock running out.. I tell the kid who did it to go get the ball. Then I run off the floor. I’m not waiting another 10 minutes for free throws and other nonsense.

Younger guys, call the T and if you see it on a test... The answer will be a T.

Quote:

Originally Posted by genetoy71 (Post 1040042)

You can do all that in 4 tenths of a second. Ball is likely still hasnt even hit its apex yet.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SNIPERBBB (Post 1040048)

You can do all that in 4 tenths of a second. Ball is likely still hasnt even hit its apex yet.

Seriously. If an official can't see this and make a decision in under 4 seconds, that official has a lot bigger problems to worry about. Just remember, on the court, we see situations, not read them. A picture is worth 1000 words!