Rush Onto The Court ...

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Another problem question from the 2022-23 IAABO Refresher Exam:

61) With Team B leading 51 to 50, Team A scores with eight seconds left in the game. A-6 and A-7 rush onto the court to congratulate the shooter. This occurs while B-1 is trying to complete a throw-in to B-2. The official rules one technical foul against Team A, awards Team B two free throws and the ball for a division-line throw-in. Is this correct?

...

Originally Posted by BillyMac

If this can be extrapolated to a NFHS high school game, it sounds more like a 10-5-2 Bench Technical (bench personnel must not enter the court unless by permission of an official, penalty includes an indirect technical foul to the head coach) than a 10-2-2 Team Technical (more than five participating, penalty does not include an indirect technical foul to the head coach).

I don't yet have the IAABO Refresher Exam answer sheet, but the reference citation sheet given to study group members by IAABO points to 10-2-2 Team Technical.

IAABO Refresher Exams are always based on NFHS rules and interpretations. I wonder if this is an IAABO error? It happens almost every year.

bob jenkins (and other Forum members): How would you rule in a NFHS (not IAABO) high school game? 10-5-2 Bench Technical or 10-2-2 Team Technical?

Hasn't the content and context of several responses (other than Ilya's) already answered your question?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

Hasn't the content and context of several responses already answered your question?

It would have been helpful if Raymond had replied to my guess (with a question mark) of "six players on the court" to his cryptic post.

Originally Posted by Raymond

Put the 2 rules side-by-side. Then think back over your 40 years of officiating about which rule is something we as officials always try to prevent from being violated b/c we tend to blame ourselves when it happens.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Allowing six players on the court?

[Raymond]

My post wasn't cryptic. You asked a question (I think, hard to tell sometimes) and I posed a questioned in return that should have led to you making a determination which rule applies to the situation posed in the initial post.

I constantly preach to the officials in my association that we need to actually think about why we make decisions on the court. Spoon-feeding answers stunts that growth.

I train to help handle situations properly on the court, not to pass a quiz/test.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

My post wasn't cryptic. You asked a question and I posed a questioned in return that should have led to you making a determination which rule applies to the situation posed in the initial post.

I actually enjoyed and was challenged by your "questioning" post. And I wasn't upset that you didn't just simply give an answer.

My answer was that officials often try to avoid having six players on the court, and except in rare cases where players "dash" off the bench, if six players are discovered during a live ball on the court immediately after a timeout, intermission, or substitution, officials often have themselves to blame by rushing the administration of inbounds play.

Was that the answer that you expected from me, because you never replied to confirm or deny?

Originally Posted by BillyMac

... how does one decide between a 10-5-2 Bench Technical or 10-2-2 Team Technical?

Originally Posted by Raymond

Hasn't the content and context of several responses already answered your question?

Originally Posted by Raymond

Put the 2 rules side-by-side. Then think back over your 40 years of officiating about which rule is something we as officials always try to prevent from being violated b/c we tend to blame ourselves when it happens.

If you accepted my answer, it implies that you support a 10-2-2 Team Technical penalty.

If you rejected my answer, that implies that you support a 10-5-2 Bench Technical penalty.

I already know that your don't support ilyazhito's 10-3 Substitute Technical penalty, and neither do I.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I actually enjoyed and was challenged by your "questioning" post. And I wasn't upset that you didn't just simply give an answer.

My answer was that officials often try to avoid having six players on the court, and except in rare cases where players "dash" off the bench, if six players are discovered during a live ball on the court immediately after a timeout, intermission, or substitution, officials often have themselves to blame by rushing the administration of inbounds play.

Was that the answer that you expected from me, because you never replied to confirm or deny?

...

And I'm not going to. Are bench personnel who spontaneously enter the court to celebrate a last second goal while the ball is still live:

A) participating illegally?

or

B) illegally on the court?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

Are bench personnel who spontaneously enter the court to celebrate a last second goal while the ball is still live:
A) participating illegally?
B) illegally on the court?

Using your recent example of assistant coaches (bench personnel) doing such, I would say illegally on the court (players and coaches) thus it's the 10-5-2 Bench Technical penalty. Right?

Why did you lead me down another path?

Originally Posted by Raymond

Put the 2 rules side-by-side. Then think back over your 40 years of officiating about which rule is something we as officials always try to prevent from being violated b/c we tend to blame ourselves when it happens.

I've never really been worried about bench personnel who spontaneously and illegally enter the court to celebrate a last second goal while the ball is still live, and if it ever happened in my game I would never blame myself, nor blame my partner.

On the other hand if six players are discovered during a live ball on the court immediately after a timeout, intermission, or substitution, officials often have themselves to blame by rushing the administration of inbounds play.

Did I answer your question incorrectly, or did you change your mind about the rule citation and penalty?

Or am I totally confused?

If the NFHS answer is really 10-5-2 Bench Technical and not 10-2-2 Team Technical, as stated in the IAABO reference citation offered to study group members, then IAABO may have an answer sheet problem and leave itself open for complaints and be forced to offer a correction.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Using your recent example of assistant coaches (bench personnel) doing such, I would say illegally on the court (players and coaches) thus it's the 10-5-2 Bench Technical penalty. Right?

Why did you lead me down another path?



I've never really been worried about bench personnel who spontaneously and illegally enter the court to celebrate a last second goal while the ball is still live, and if it ever happened in my game I would never blame myself, nor blame my partner.

On the other hand if six players are discovered during a live ball on the court immediately after a timeout, intermission, or substitution, officials often have themselves to blame by rushing the administration of inbounds play.

Did I answer your question incorrectly, or did you change your mind about the rule citation and penalty?

...

I never gave an answer. You were/are struggling with the differences about participating illegally and bench personnel entering the court illegally.

I'm just providing a thought process to use when actually officiating a game where you have to make a decision.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

I'm just providing a thought process to use when actually officiating a game where you have to make a decision.

In the heat of the game I would have probably incorrectly (before this thread) gone with extra players on the court, but as an exam question I'm leaning toward bench personnel entering the court (based on Raymond's post about assistant coaches).

Not sure what IAABO wants us to do with this. I'll let everybody know when I get the answer sheet. As I've already stated, the IAABO reference citation for this question is 10-2-2 Team Technical.

Still not sure how I want to answer this, as I think that they want me to answer, or the right answer, and possibly fight "city hall" later.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

In the heat of the game I would have probably gone with extra players on the court, but as an exam question I'm leaning toward bench personnel entering the court (based on Raymond's post about assistant coaches).

Not sure what IAABO wants us to do with this. I'll let everybody know when I get the answer sheet. As I've already stated, the IAABO reference citation for this question is 10-2-2 Team Technical.

Still not sure how I want to answer this, as I think that they want me to answer, or the right answer, and possibly fight "city hall" later.

You answer it correctly and then bring it up with the appropriate organization. I've done it a few times with the NCAA-Men's test. I (along w/others) have also challenged a couple of their interpretations which have subsequently been corrected.

I'm more concerned with proper interpretation so plays are handled correctly on the court. You often seem more concerned with getting points on a test.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Raymond

You answer it correctly and then bring it up with the appropriate organization. I've done it a few times with the NCAA-Men's test. I (along w/others) have also challenged a couple of their interpretations which have subsequently been corrected.

I'm more concerned with proper interpretation so plays are handled correctly on the court. You often seem more concerned with getting points on a test.

Agreed. IF you (generic "you") are wrong, you learn something; if you (ditto) are right, everyone else learns something

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

You answer it correctly and then bring it up with the appropriate organization. I'm more concerned with proper interpretation so plays are handled correctly on the court. You often seem more concerned with getting points on a test.

I can walk and chew gum at the same time. I'm concerned with both. Many varsity officials can use their "bully pulpit" experience and "bluff" their way through really weird once in a season/decade/career situations. I prefer to do it the right way, by the book, if I possibly can.

A few decades ago, a former local varsity colleague of mine, a good official, moved to different part of Connecticut. After a one point game, while he and his partner were off the visual confines of the court for mere seconds, not even getting a chance to sit down in the looker room, they were informed (in the locker room) by the site director that there was an error with the final score. He and his partner came back onto to the court, decided the game should have gone into overtime, and played overtime which ended up reversing the outcome of the game.

This error on the part of the officials (not the official scorebook error, that was a mere afterthought) made all the newspapers in Connecticut. It was not a good look. I'm not sure if he didn't know the rule (he was a smart guy, a renowned attorney), or if the officials just decided that it was the "fair" thing to do?

While I do my utter best to understand the "bread and butter" rules that happen all the time in our games (block/charge, screens, advantage/disadvantage, etc.) and have an impact on every single game we officiate, I also try to understand the really weird once in a season/decade/career situations, like the odd things that often show up only on written exams.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Raymond

I'm more concerned with proper interpretation so plays are handled correctly on the court. You often seem more concerned with getting points on a test.

BINGO!!!!!

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

61) With Team B leading 51 to 50, Team A scores with eight seconds left in the game. A-6 and A-7 rush onto the court to congratulate the shooter. This occurs while B-1 is trying to complete a throw-in to B-2. The official rules one technical foul against Team A, awards Team B two free throws and the ball for a division-line throw-in. Is this correct?

Thanks to my Forum colleagues and friends, I've decided that IAABO rule reference citation (10-2-2 Team Technical) is incorrect. The rule reference citation should be 10-5-2 Bench Technical.

This is what convinced me:

Originally Posted by Raymond

Instead of A6 & A7, let's make it 2 assistant coaches.

Thanks Raymond.

But I changed Raymond's situation a tad:

With Team B leading 51 to 50, Team A scores with eight seconds left in the game. A-6 and Team A Assistant Coach rush onto the court to congratulate the shooter. This occurs while B-1 is trying to complete a throw-in to B-2. The official rules one technical foul against Team A, awards Team B two free throws and the ball for a division-line throw-in.

Obviously the Assistant Coach isn't participating as an extra player, so it's best to cite 10-5-2 Bench Technical (not 10-2-2 Team Technical).

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

61) With Team B leading 51 to 50, Team A scores with eight seconds left in the game. A-6 and A-7 rush onto the court to congratulate the shooter. This occurs while B-1 is trying to complete a throw-in to B-2. The official rules one technical foul against Team A, awards Team B two free throws and the ball for a division-line throw-in. Is this correct?

So now I've got another problem. Was the official correct?

It doesn't say, "one team technical foul against Team A", it says, "one technical foul against Team A", which is exactly what happens under 10-5-2 Bench Technical, the "bench technical" is assessed against Team A.

Official is correct there.

It also doesn't say that the official charges an indirect technical foul to Team A Head Coach (as proper under 10-5-2 Bench Technical).

Does the absence of a mention of an indirect technical foul make the official (and the question) incorrect?

Right now I'm leaning toward 61) Yes, official was correct.

Everything stated in the question is correct.

Nothing stated in the question is incorrect.

My enquiring mind wants to know.

The "perfect score" ship has sailed.

There are so many poorly worded questions on this exam that I have a better chance at winning the Powerball Jackpot than of getting a perfect score on this year's IAABO exam.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

...

There are so many poorly worded questions on this exam that I have a better chance at winning the Powerball Jackpot than of getting a perfect score on this year's IAABO exam.

Which is why most of us don't care what's written on the test you are taking. We discuss what the rule is. You always want us to "get the question right" for you.