Fun With Three Seconds …

[BillyMac]

IAABO Make The Call Video

https://storage.googleapis.com/refqu...av7d5ing%3D%3D

Was this a correct 3-second ruling on Red #44? Should the count have been suspended when Red #12 drove into the lane?

Two choices: The count should have been suspended. The count should not be suspended and the ruling is correct.

My comment: The count should not be suspended and the ruling is correct. The three second count on Red #44 is not impacted by Red #12 driving into the lane.

[Camron Rust]

Correct call. The post player was in the middle of the lane. She passed the ball back towards the top drawing the attention of the defense there. By staying in the lane, she gained positional advantage that was no intended. It may have been different if she was trying to move out or if it had occurred near the FT line, but she was right at the basket.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

IAABO Was this a correct 3-second ruling on Red #44? Should the count have been suspended when Red #12 drove into the lane?

Is that the actual IAABO question? A count isn't suspended (or, more accurately, allowance isn't made) when *someone else* dribbles in or moves to try for goal.

Correct call. L could have had it, too.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Is that the actual IAABO question? A count isn't suspended (or, more accurately, allowance isn't made) when someone else dribbles in or moves to try for goal..

I thought the same myself, as I viewed the video I was actually waiting for Red #44 to make a move to the basket, a move that never happened. For a second I believed that I had mixed up the player numbers. Unfortunately, some officials IAABO, and otherwise, have formed many rule "myths" in their mind that have "stuck" over time. Sad, but true, early returns show that about one of ten members who commented believe that the count should have been suspended.

[BillyMac]

Interesting signals by the Center. Must be getting ready for baseball season.

On the positive side, I never saw such enthusiasm for a three second call, especially for a call that didn't precede a ball entering the basket.

Odd signals, but crisp signals. Good for him.

[Zoochy]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Interesting signals by the Center. Must be getting ready for baseball season.

On the positive side, I never saw such enthusiasm for a three second call, especially for a call that didn't precede a ball entering the basket.

Odd signals, but crisp signals. Good for him.

So much for using the signal to STOP THE CLOCK

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Zoochy

So much for using the signal to STOP THE CLOCK

No need to stop the clock, the player was obviously safe.

[BillyMac]

Disclaimer: Below is not a NFHS interpretation, it's only an IAABO interpretation which obviously doesn't mean a hill of beans to most members of this Forum

https://storage.googleapis.com/refqu...av7d5ing%3D%3D

IAABO Play Commentary

Correct Answer: The count should not be suspended and the ruling is correct.

Red #44 receives a pass in the lane, dribbles one time, then passes to a teammate Red #12. Red #44 remains in the lane as Red #12 advances the ball toward the basket.

Should the officials suspend the count on Red #44 while Red #12 is making a move toward the basket? The answer is no.

Allowance must be made for a player who, having been in the restricted area for less than three seconds, dribbles in or moves immediately to try for a field goal. (9-7-3) In other words, officials may only suspend the count on a player with the ball who is in the lane and making a move toward the basket.

In this play, Red #44 was in the lane for 3-seconds as her teammate was entering the lane with the ball. By rule, this is a 3-second violation and was correctly ruled by the Center official. Had the Red team released the ball on a try before Red #44 had been in the lane for 3-seconds, officials would terminate the count.

Here is the breakdown of the IAABO members that commented on the video: The count should not be suspended and the ruling is correct 83% (including me). The count should have been suspended 17%.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Is that the actual IAABO question? A count isn't suspended (or, more accurately, allowance isn't made) when someone else dribbles in or moves to try for goal.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Unfortunately, some officials, IAABO, and otherwise, have formed many rule "myths" in their mind that have "stuck" over time. Sad, but true, early returns show that about one of ten members who commented believe that the count should have been suspended.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Here is the breakdown of the IAABO members that commented on the video: ... The count should have been suspended 17%.

Wow. It was worse than I expected.

I sure hope that IAABO doesn't waste horrible answers like this and addresses issues such as this (not just this one) in future educational resources.

Back in "junior high school" days, when I was teaching ninth grade Earth Science, I would give a multiple choice final exam (required for high school credit) and run an analysis of the "fill in the bubble" answer sheets to see which questions the students struggled with the most, and use this information to revise my lesson plans for the next school year.

[JRutledge]

I will also make this point. Unless there was a steal that took place right before the player, the Trail takes a really long time to get into the front court with all 10 players. Not a great display of hustle, even when he gets close into the front court, he has no sense of urgency.

Peace

[BillyMac]

... it hides his bald spot.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

... the Trail takes a really long time to get into the front court with all 10 players. Not a great display of hustle ...

He stopped in the backcourt to tie his shoe.

[youngump]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Wow. It was worse than I expected.

I sure hope that IAABO doesn't waste horrible answers like this and addresses issues such as this (not just this one) in future educational resources.

Really? 22% missed the PC foul and you're hoping they'll make sure that 3 second calls like this. I agree with your concept about them using the answers to make fixes, but, this just doesn't make my priority list.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by youngump

Really? 22% missed the PC foul and you're hoping they'll make sure that 3 second calls like this. I agree with your concept about them using the answers to make fixes, but, this just doesn't make my priority list.

Yeah, three seconds is a low priority call. Officials often kid that if three seconds was one's toughest call in a game, then one had a very easy game.

If you're referring to the "Fun With Legal Guarding Position" thread, that was a subjective judgment, somewhat challenging call for some, a call that at least one Forum member questioned.

While many calls have at least some subjective judgment component to them, this three second thread was mostly about simple rule knowledge, with one Forum member appropriately making fun of the simplicity of the rule highlighted in the video. This video did stand out when one compares the simplicity of the question and lack of complexity of the rule, relative to the high number of incorrect answers.

And I was not just referring to re-examining only this one incorrect answer issue. I'm pretty sure that IAABO can both walk and chew gum.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

... addresses issues such as this (not just this one) in future educational resources.

Also, in the overall scheme of things, this will be a relatively easy problem for IAABO to fix compared to other more complex subjective judgment problems.

[youngump]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Yeah, three seconds is a low priority call. Officials often kid that if three seconds was one's toughest call in a game, then one had a very easy game.

If you're referring to the "Fun With Legal Guarding Position" thread, that was a subjective judgment, somewhat challenging call for some, a call that at least one Forum member questioned.

I am, but I think you may be overstating how much disagreement there was. Mechanic guy said he got it wrong on the first look but then saw that it was a PC. I believe all other interesting discussion was about whether or not we should just guess if we didn't see something happen.
I agree that all block charges are subjective; but I don't agree it was close for officials who were voting after seeing a replay (potentially many times). If almost 1 in 4 officials thinks that's a charge after multiple views then I think IAABO has a problem. I'd note that these are officials doing the work to get better because they are looking at plays and commenting. My instinct is the number would be even worse among those who didn't take the poll.
As an impact to the game matter, not knowing the 3 second rule correctly and missing this call is pretty low. Missing block charges tends to be higher impact mistakes.
If I were basketball czar for a day, I'd change the rules test to be watching 100 videos like these and grade officials on that and videos like this one would be a small portion and videos like the other a large portion.

[BillyMac]

... not queen, not duke, not prince.

Originally Posted by youngump

As an impact to the game matter, not knowing the 3 second rule correctly and missing this call is pretty low. Missing block charges tends to be higher impact mistakes.

Agree.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

... if three seconds was one's toughest call in a game, then one had a very easy game.

Originally Posted by youngump

If I were basketball czar for a day, I'd change the rules test to be watching 100 videos like these and grade officials on that and videos like this one would be a small portion and videos like the other a large portion.