With A Little Help From My Friends (The Beatles, 1967) ...

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

So an illegal possession isn't a possession?

Like an illegal kick by a defender on a run the endline throwin, or on a throwin for an alternating possession, isn't a "touch" to end the throwin?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Didn't FED change the rule (about 10 years ago) where A1 catches the jump ball so it's not simultaneously "control" and a violation? (so B gets the ball A gets the arrow).

Originally Posted by BillyMac

4-12-1: There is no player control when, during a jump ball, a
jumper catches the ball prior to the ball touching the floor or a non-jumper,
or during an interrupted dribble.

6.4.1 SITUATION C: Following the jump between A1 and B1 to start the first quarter, the jump ball: (d) is caught by A1. RULING: In (d), Team B will have a throw-in because of the violation and the arrow for the alternating-possession will be pointed towards Team A’s basket. (4-12-1; 4-28-1)

No more lose the ball and lose the arrow like in the good old days.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Because no one has yet established initial team control inbounds?

4-12-2-A: A team is in control of the ball: When a player of the team is in control.

4-12-1: A player is in control of the ball when he/she is holding or dribbling a live ball.

I agree with Raymond but would appreciate a citation.

4-12-1 used to have the word inbounds at the end. It was removed several years ago when the NFHS incorporated throw-in situations into the team control foul rule and mutilated the definition of team control.
What you can contend under the present wording is that the player who catches the ball while having one foot out of bounds is not holding a live ball. He is holding a dead ball because the ball immediately became dead the instant that it touched this player. Therefore, there is no player or team control established during this play and we must wait until the ball is placed at the disposal of an opposing player for the ensuing throw-in to set the AP arrow.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

4-42-5-A: The throw-in ends when: The passed ball touches or is touched by another player inbounds.

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)

7.5.7 SITUATION B: Team A scores a field goal. B1 picks up the ball after the made basket, then proceeds out of bounds to start the throw-in process. B1 runs along the end line out of bounds while attempting to find an open teammate for the throw-in. Immediately after B1 releases the throw-in pass, (a) the ball is kicked by A2 near the end line; or (c) the ball is deflected out of bounds across the end line off of A2. RULING: In (a) A2 has violated by kicking the ball. In (a), Team B will be awarded a throw-in and retain the right to run the end line on the ensuing throw-in. In (c), A2 legally contacted the ball and subsequently hit it out of bounds, ending the throw-in. Team B is awarded a designated spot throw-in on the end line.[/I]

Is the official correct? Yes.

So are Raymond, Camron Rust, and bob jenkins.

How about those for a three person crew?

This rule used to include the word legally. It was removed in an unannounced, and incorrect in my opinion, editorial change a few years ago. All of the case play rulings continue to adjudicate these throw-in situations as if the word legal is still in the rule. The NFHS should put it back in the text.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

4-12-1 used to have the word inbounds at the end. It was removed several years ago when the NFHS incorporated throw-in situations into the team control foul rule and mutilated the definition of team control.
What you can contend under the present wording is that the player who catches the ball while having one foot out of bounds is not holding a live ball. He is holding a dead ball because the ball immediately became dead the instant that it touched this player. Therefore, there is no player or team control established during this play and we must wait until the ball is placed at the disposal of an opposing player for the ensuing throw-in to set the AP arrow.



This rule used to include the word legally. It was removed in an unannounced, and incorrect in my opinion, editorial change a few years ago. All of the case play rulings continue to adjudicate these throw-in situations as if the word legal is still in the rule. The NFHS should put it back in the text.

Agree on both counts.

[Altor]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

He is holding a dead ball because the ball immediately became dead the instant that it touched this player.

This would be my opinion as well. It may be an infinitesimally small time frame, but there was a point that the player touched the ball while out of bounds that came before he controlled the ball.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

4-12-1 used to have the word inbounds at the end. It was removed several years ago when the NFHS incorporated throw-in situations into the team control foul rule and mutilated the definition of team control. What you can contend under the present wording is that the player who catches the ball while having one foot out of bounds is not holding a live ball. He is holding a dead ball because the ball immediately became dead the instant that it touched this player. Therefore, there is no player or team control established during this play and we must wait until the ball is placed at the disposal of an opposing player for the ensuing throw-in to set the AP arrow.

This rule used to include the word legally. It was removed in an unannounced, and incorrect in my opinion, editorial change a few years ago. All of the case play rulings continue to adjudicate these throw-in situations as if the word legal is still in the rule. The NFHS should put it back in the text.

Originally Posted by Altor

It may be an infinitesimally small time frame, but there was a point that the player touched the ball while out of bounds that came before he controlled the ball.

Agree.

Great explanation, interpretation, word choice, and history lesson by Nevadaref.

I'm sticking with my original answer, and everybody else's answer, that the official in the exam question was incorrect.

Thanks guys.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

IAABO Refresher Exam ...

Originally Posted by BillyMac

IAABO Refresher Exam mechanics questions

Thanks for the help, convincing me to keep one of my answers (run the endline privilege after kick).

I submitted my exam and got 98/100 (100 combined rules and mechanics questions), my best score in years, maybe ever, probably because I've had nothing else to do in my secret underground COVID bomb shelter other than research and double check all 100 exam questions.

I won't find out which two questions I missed for a few weeks. If they are of any interest, I'll share them with you when I know (I probably just misread something, which would be of no interest to all of you).

I bet one of the missed questions was the disallowing a goal due to basket interference from the reporting area question, that I said was correct.

I probably should have listened to SC Official.

[BillyMac]

This was one of the toughest questions on the Refresher Exam based on the number of incorrect answers:

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

While the answer (the official was incorrect) was correct, the interpretation/citation was incorrect.

Who wants to play?

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

This was one of the toughest questions on the Refresher Exam based on the number of incorrect answers:

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

While the answer (the official was incorrect) was correct, the interpretation/citation was incorrect.

Who wants to play?

The citation looks fine to me. It tells you that this action is a technical foul for delay of game, unless the ROP procedure is in effect, which it would be following a time-out or intermission.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

The citation looks fine to me. It tells you that this action is a technical foul for delay of game, unless the ROP procedure is in effect, which it would be following a time-out or intermission.

Maybe I didn't word my question correctly. You failed to read the bottom line, stating that the official should have given a "delay of game warning" instead of placing "the ball on the free throw line" in this situation, which is also incorrect.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

This was one of the toughest questions on the Refresher Exam based on the number of incorrect answers.

For the good of the cause, here are three more of the five most missed questions (the fifth was an IAABO mechanics question) on my local board:

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

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

This was one of the toughest questions on the Refresher Exam based on the number of incorrect answers:

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

While the answer (the official was incorrect) was correct, the interpretation/citation was incorrect.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Maybe I didn't word my question correctly. You failed to read the bottom line, stating that the official should have given a "delay of game warning" instead of placing "the ball on the free throw line" in this situation, which is also incorrect.

10.4.5 SITUATION: The ruling official has reported the foul and has given directions to players along the lane. The official is ready to put the ball at free thrower A1’s disposal, but A1 is at the sideline talking to the coach. RULING: A technical foul for delay is charged to A1. No warning is authorized in this situation. (10-3-5c)

10-4-5-C: Player Technical Foul: A player shall not: Delay the game by acts such as: The free thrower fails to be in the free-throw semicircle when the official is ready to administer the free throw unless the resumption-of-play procedure is in effect following a time-out or intermission.

4-47: A warning to a team for delay is an administrative procedure by an official which is recorded in the scorebook by the scorer and reported to the head coach:
ART. 1 For throw-in plane violations, as in 9-2-10, 10-2-1c.
ART. 2 For huddle by either team and contact with the free thrower, as in 10-2-1d.
ART. 3 For interfering with the ball following a goal as in 10-2-1e.
ART. 4 For failure to have the court ready for play following any timeout as in 10-2-1f.

10-2-1: Team Technical Foul: A team shall not: Allow the game to develop into an actionless contest, this includes the following and similar acts:
b. Delay the game by preventing the ball from being made promptly live or from being put in play. See 7-5-1 and 8-1-2 for the resumption-of-play procedure to use after a time-out or the intermission between quarters. The procedure is used prior to charging a technical foul in these specific situations.
c. Commit a violation of the throw-in boundary-line plane, as in 9-2-10, after any team warning for delay.
d. Contact with the free thrower or a huddle of two or more players in the lane by either team prior to a free throw following any team warning for delay.
e. Interfering with the ball following a goal after any team warning for delay.
f. Not having the court ready for play following any time-out after any team warning for delay.

8-1-2: Following a time-out or intermission, the resumption-of-play procedure may be used to prevent delay. The administering official will sound the whistle to indicate play will resume. The ball must be placed at the disposal of the thrower or placed on the floor at the free-throw line and the count must begin. Either or both teams may be charged with a violation. Following a violation by one or both teams, if the offending team(s) continues to delay, a team technical foul must be ruled.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

IAABO Refresher Exam...

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I won't find out which two questions I missed for a few weeks. If they are of any interest, I'll share them with you when I know ...

Got this one wrong. I got cocky, read it too quickly, and confused this situation with one of the backcourt exceptions.

61. A-l is dribbling the ball in the frontcourt near the division line when B-1 bats the ball into the air. A-l jumps from his frontcourt and catches the ball while in the air. A-1 then lands in the backcourt. The official rules
a legal play. Is the official correct?
61. No 4-12-3, 4-35-3, 4-4-2, 9-9-1

The four elements for having a backcourt violation are: there must be team control (and initial player control when coming from a throwin); the ball must have achieved frontcourt status; the team in team control must be the last to touch the ball before it goes into the backcourt; that same team must be the first to touch after the ball has been in the backcourt.

My second incorrect answer was an IAABO mechanics question.