Normal Landing ...
 

IAABO Refresher Exam study group last week. We couldn't come up with a consensus on this question (below), struggling with the word "hesitates".

During a throw-in, airborne A-2 catches the pass after jumping from the frontcourt. A-2 lands with one foot in the frontcourt, hesitates and then places the other foot down in the backcourt. The official rules a legal play. Is this correct?

Does the word "hesitates" somehow impact and negate this situation from being a "normal landing"?

9-9-3: During a jump ball, throw-in or while on defense, a player may legally jump from his/her frontcourt, secure control of the ball with both feet off the floor and return to the floor with one or both feet in the backcourt. The player may make a normal landing and it makes no difference whether the first foot down is in the frontcourt or backcourt.

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/5b/85...04c4ecdd14.jpg

Billy:

With respect to your question, I never gave it much thought because I only concerned myself with "...and it makes no difference whether the first foot down is in the frontcourt or backcourt." That said I would rule A2's actions legal.

I would propose that the last sentence in R9-S9-A3 should read: "It makes no difference whether the player's first foot down is in the frontcourt or backcourt." This would remove all ambiguity.

What say you?

MTD, Sr.

P.S. Since IAABO Board #55 went defunct a few years back, Mark, Jr. and I are now Indivdual Members and thus only receive the Handbook and the Refresher Exam but not the answer key to the Refresher Exam. When you have a chance this week could you email me a copy of the Refresher Exam's answer key. Thanks.

Better Late Than Never ...
 

We won't get it until sometime after November 18, 2022, the due date of our online Refresher Exam.

I see "normal" in this case as a player coming down without making any non-instictual manipulation.
If you can tell the player thought about it, we've went beyond "normal" landing.

I would be fine with just eliminating the last sentence of 9-9-3 entirely to prevent ambiguity.

Really would be an rare play in any circumstance and if someone does decide to play flamingo with one foot in the FC and then drop the second in the BC, one half of the crowd and coaches would be yelling for the BC and the other half would be holding their breath that you dont call it.

Oakely doakely!

MTD, Sr.

I do not have a problem with my proposed wording for R9-S9-A3, because in my "humble", :p, opinion it would bring it in alignment with how we adjudicate R4-S44. While not exactly like the IAABO Refresher Exam play, see NFHS CB Play 4.44.3B for a similar situation of indecision by an Offensive Player who is in Control of the Ball.

MTD, Sr.

We get paid to make those decisions.

We all should know what a normal landing looks like.

Err on the side of a normal landing if it's not obvious that it was an abnormal landing.

I hope no one turns it into a 2-hour long discussion during a rules get together.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Trick Question ???
 

Yes, we all know what a normal landing looks like in a real game, but what does it "sound" like in text on a written exam?

A dozen and a half guys in the study group. No answer sheet. Spent a few minutes talking about the relevance of the word "hesitates". Guy sitting next to me said to just ignore "hesitates" in the question. I kind of agreed with him. Others didn't agree with him, thinking that IAABO was trying to trick us.

I'm A Little Teapot (1939) ...
 

What about a player who during a throw-in, while airborne, catches the inbounds pass after jumping from the frontcourt, lands solidly with one foot in the frontcourt, incorrectly believes that to put his other foot down in the backcourt would result in a backcourt violation, so he consciously hesitates while trying to maintain his balance while remaining on one foot for a second, but end ups losing his balance and his other foot falls into the backcourt?

Is that "normal landing"?

replace "normal" with "otherwise legal"

Context ???
 

In what context? Rule 9-9-3? A specific post in this thread?

Dumb move player(s)... Tweet and move on.

Comment #2:
Comment #6:
Comment #9:
Comment #10:
Comment #11:
1) Let me first reply to Billy's Comment #9. My answer to your question is: Since A2's footwork with regard to the Traveling Rule (NFHS R4-S44) is legal, my answer is: Yes.


2a) Bob: Your Comment #10 caused me to pause and think about what I said in my Comments #2 and #6. In my Comment #2 I proposed that the last sentence of R9-S9-A3 should read: "It makes no difference whether the player's first foot down is in the frontcourt or backcourt.", while you proposed that it is should read: "The player may make an otherwise legal landing and it makes no difference whether the first foot down is in the frontcourt or backcourt."

2b) Which made me think (Me thinking! What a concept! LOL!). Whether the last sentence of NFHS R9-S3-A3 reads: i) as currently reads: "The player may make a normal landing and it makes no difference whether the first foot down is in the frontcourt or backcourt."; ii) your proposal: "The player may make an otherwise legal landing and it makes no difference whether the first foot down is in the frontcourt or backcourt."; or iii) my proposal: "It makes no difference whether the first foot down is in the frontcourt or backcourt."

2c) IAABO Question 40 is easy to adjudicate , because we can apply NFHS R4-S44-A2a2, and every since R9-S9-A3 was adopted almost 30 years ago, every NFHS Rules Interpretation and Casebook Play Situation, NCAA Men's/Women's A.R. and Rules Interpretation, and IAABO Refresher Exam Question that I can remember always had A2 with one foot landing in the Front Court first followed by the other foot landing in the Back Court second, a situation in which A2's foot work is governed by NFHS R4-S44-A2a2. But not once (that I can remember) has a situation where A2, after his/her foot first lands in the Front Court and then jump off that foot and simultaneously land on both feet in the Back Court, a situation in which A2's foot work is governed by NFHS R4-S44-A2a3.

2d) A2's foot work in both situations in 2c) are legal with regard to R4-S44-A2 and no Back Court Violation has occured in the situation governed by R4-S44-A2a2 but is the situation governed by R4-S44-A2a3 a Back Court Violation?

3) Billy with regard to your Comment #11, I think that I may have muddied the waters. I apologize.

MTD, Sr.

Dirty Water (The Standells, 1966) ...
 

No you didn't "muddy" any water. Adding the word "hesitates" to the exam question "muddied" the water.

Enjoy.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/5apEctKwiD8" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Our generation (Boomers) made the best music!

MTD, Sr.