Rush Onto The Court ...

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

You always want us to "get the question right" for you.

I'm actually interested understanding the reason why I should answer one way or the other. Learning reasons for interpretations will make me (and everybody else on the Forum) a better official.

I consider the Forum to be an extension my local board exam study group.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I'm actually interested understanding the reason why I should answer one way or the other. Learning reasons for interpretations will make me (and everybody else on the Forum) a better official.

I consider the Forum to be an extension my local board exam study group.

The bolded statement has always been my MO... independent of this forum. Those who contribute regularly here are already striving to be better officials... independent of this forum.

Your constant back-and-forth with yourself and your pedantic obsession with IAABO test answers often stifles or kills what could be fruitful conversations.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Learning reasons for interpretations will make me a better official.

Originally Posted by Raymond

... has always been my MO...

And mine also.

As both a student and a teacher, I have always stressed understanding as a necessary supplement to rote memorization.

Back in college, my girlfriend (to become my fiance, wife, and ex-wife) and I always studied together. We were both studying to be teachers, she elementary education, me secondary education science.

She would study by rote memorization, repeating things to herself silently, or sometimes out loud. When I would question her about what she learned, she would often not have a real understanding of what she learned. But it worked for her, she graduated summa cum laude and had an outstanding career as a reading teacher.

Rote memorization never worked for me (maybe because I have a poor memory). When I would study I would combine memorization with a thorough understanding of the topic. Why do I need to learn this? How does this match up with past learning? How does this relate to similar topics? How can this be extrapolated? How might I possibly confuse this with similar topics? What are examples of this topic?

Same thing when I taught middle school science. While my students had to memorize some things, I often tried to teach them using my system of memorization combined with a thorough understanding of the topic. Even something that many teachers usually taught using only rote memory, like element symbols (that I memorized poorly in high school). I would explain to my students how these symbols came to be. Why can't Nickel be N? Why can't Radon be Ra? Why are few element symbols based on Latin? What's Wolfram? Most teachers (like my high school chemistry teacher, Mr. Dalton) would simply pass out an element symbol handout and say, "Memorize it".

And I would allow my students to take the element symbol quiz multiple times. The grade wasn't important, learning the symbols was important because we were going to move on to actually "using" the symbols (with periodic tables that didn't have element names, just symbols).

Note: Back in high school, I struggled with memorizing element symbols, especially the Latin element symbols. My Dad gave me a silly, possibly stupid, hint that I remember to this day. "When the Mercury goes up in the thermometer, the grass grows high, thus Mercury's symbol is Hg, high grass". Worked for me, easier than telling me that the symbol is based on the Latin (or Greek) word for Mercury, hydrargyrum.

While I'm sure that there are exceptions (like my girlfriend), by combining memorization with a thorough understanding leads to longer lived learning.

[Raymond]

Your post is an ironic response to my statement that you sometimes kill/stifle fruitful conversations.... LOL

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

Your post is an ironic response to my statement that you sometimes kill/stifle fruitful conversations ...

This thread turned out to be quite fruitful.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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.

Mostly due to Raymond's participation.

I'm still not sure what the right answer is (or will be), but I know what the interpretation to the situation should be.

And when the rubber meets the road, that's what this exam should be all about.

While my annual goal of doing as best as I possibly can is worthwhile, it's not more important than a thorough knowledge of the rules and interpretations, including really weird once in a season/decade/career situations.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Why can't Nickel be N? Why can't Radon be Ra? Why are few element symbols based on Latin? What's Wolfram?

Any science nerds out there want to give it a try?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

You always want us to "get the question right" for you.

There's never any pleasure in me just simply getting the answers from somebody.

No pride in that for me.

I not only want to know if I'm right or wrong, but more importantly, why I'm right or wrong.

On these recent threads regarding the IAABO Refresher Exam, note that I did my "homework" in advance, before posting my questions, even posting rule and caseplay citations.

And it was never about me "passing" the exam. Passing is 80% or better. Over forty-plus exams, I'm always at mid-to-upper 90's percent. Even before we had study groups.

And sometimes I can't blame the "wording" on the exam, sometimes I just blow the question. Simply dead wrong. And I learn from it.

Never had a perfect exam.

Never had a perfect game.

But I can keep on trying.

Both are worthwhile goals for any official.

Maybe not achievable, but certainly worthwhile trying to achieve.

[BillyMac]

Sorry to resurrect this thread, but I noticed something interesting on Greg Austin's Better Official live You Tube broadcast this morning that made me say "hmmm".

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?

10-5-2: Bench Technical: The head coach is responsible for his/her own conduct and behavior, as well as substitutes, disqualified team members and all other bench personnel. Bench personnel, including the head coach, must not: Enter the court unless by permission of an official to attend an injured player. Penalty: The officials must warn the head coach unless the offense is judge to be major, in which case a technical foul must be ruled. Two free throws plus the ball for a division-line throwin. If the head coach is the offender, the foul is charged directly to him/her. The foul is charged to the offender (if not the head coach) and also charged indirectly to the head coach.

Is this bench technical charged to the "bench", or to the "offender(s)" on the bench?

If charged to the "offender(s)", will technical fouls be charged to both A-6 and A-7 (as well as two indirect technical fouls charged to the head coach), resulting in four free throws?

Or is this one of those situations where the NFHS doesn't want a "parade of free throw shooters" and limits the number of technical fouls charged and the number of free throws (i.e., roster, starters, player numbers, identical numbers, illegal uniforms), and if so, can anybody supply a citation for such limits?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Sorry to resurrect this thread, but I noticed something interesting on Greg Austin's Better Official live You Tube broadcast this morning that made me say "hmmm".

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?

10-5-2: Bench Technical: The head coach is responsible for his/her own conduct and behavior, as well as substitutes, disqualified team members and all other bench personnel. Bench personnel, including the head coach, must not: Enter the court unless by permission of an official to attend an injured player. Penalty: The officials must warn the head coach unless the offense is judge to be major, in which case a technical foul must be ruled. Two free throws plus the ball for a division-line throwin. If the head coach is the offender, the foul is charged directly to him/her. The foul is charged to the offender (if not the head coach) and also charged indirectly to the head coach.

Is this bench technical charged to the "bench", or to the "offender(s)" on the bench?

If charged to the "offender(s)", will technical fouls be charged to both A-6 and A-7 (as well as two indirect technical fouls charged to the head coach), resulting in four free throws?

Or is this one of those situations where the NFHS doesn't want a "parade of free throw shooters" and limits the number of technical fouls charged and the number of free throws (i.e., roster, starters, player numbers, identical numbers, illegal uniforms), and if so, can anybody supply a citation for such limits?

In the Case Book in regards to rule 10-5 for a different infraction you should be able to find your answer.

[BillyMac]

10-2-2: A team shall not: Have more than five team players participating simultaneously.

Now this would be team team technical foul, one technical foul charged to the team (not the extra players), and only two free throws, no matter how many "extra" players participate.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

In the Case Book in regards to rule 10-5 for a different infraction you should be able to find your answer.

10.5.4 SITUATION B: Team A coaches and substitutes are all standing during a free throw by A1. The infraction is detected by the officials. How many technical fouls are assessed? RULING: In a situation where similar multiple infractions occur at the same time, it is not the intent of the rules to penalize each individual infraction as a separate technical foul. One technical foul is charged to Team A and it is also charged indirectly to the head coach in this situation, resulting in the loss of coaching-box privileges.

Thanks Raymond.

[BillyMac]

I decided to submit my IAABO Refresher Exam answers.

97/100. Three incorrect answers.

No shame in that. Almost all of my "alone" (before study group) open book answers remained unchanged after the study group. After the study group I researched (on my own and on the Forum) a few tricky questions. I did my best. Gotta take some pride in my effort.

Thanks to the Forum for your help.

While I know that I got three questions wrong, I won't know which questions I got wrong until, at the earliest, November 18, 2022, when all the exams are submitted and the answer sheet becomes available.

Once the answer sheet becomes available, I will share my incorrect answers with the Forum, even if I made stupid mistakes. We can all learn from our mistakes.

Or we can all "beat up" on IAABO.

I have a sneaking suspicion that two of my incorrect answers involved me intentionally substituting the word backboard for the word basket/ring (based on purpose and intent):

https://forum.officiating.com/basket...ml#post1045686

7) A-1 attempts a pass to A-2 in Team A’s backcourt. The ball hits Team B’s basket and deflects directly back to A-1 who catches the ball and starts a dribble. The official rules a legal play. Is this correct?
My answer: 7) No. Official is incorrect. Illegal (double) dribble.

48) With four minutes remaining in the quarter, A-1, in the backcourt, throws a pass toward A-5 in the frontcourt. The pass hits the ring and rebounds untouched back to A-1 in the backcourt. The officials allow play to continue. Is this correct?
My answer: 48) Yes. Official is correct.

Not as sure, but this question still bugs me:

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?
My answer: 61) Yes. Official is correct.

Of course there's always the possibility that I made really stupid mistakes, like carelessly misreading some questions, confusing backcourt with frontcourt, confusing Team A with Team B, overlooking an important word like "not", etc.

Happens to me almost every year.

And there's always the possibility that I just kicked a rule (or two, or three).

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by ilyazhito

This is a substitute technical foul under 10-3, because the extra players are not participating. Because two players illegally enter the court, there are two separate offenses, and thus B would receive 4 free throws and possession.

This is incorrect because the NFHS has told us on several occasions that multiple offenders from a team committing the same infraction simultaneously should only be penalized with a single team technical foul.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

10.5.4 SITUATION B: Team A coaches and substitutes are all standing during a free throw by A1. The infraction is detected by the officials. How many technical fouls are assessed? RULING: In a situation where similar multiple infractions occur at the same time, it is not the intent of the rules to penalize each individual infraction as a separate technical foul. One technical foul is charged to Team A and it is also charged indirectly to the head coach in this situation, resulting in the loss of coaching-box privileges.

Thanks Raymond.

This is one such ruling. I recall the NFHS issuing another one for an entire team changing their jerseys behind the team bench just prior to the start of the contest.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I have a sneaking suspicion that two of my incorrect answers involved me intentionally substituting the word backboard for the word basket/ring (based on purpose and intent)

I should have listened to Nevadaref and ilyazhito:

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I would treat the ball striking only the ring the same as if the player merely tossed the ball up into the air and caught it again. My reasoning for doing such is that the rules book specifies backboard in the passage which states that action constitutes a dribble ... the ring/basket is not mentioned … the ball striking the ring is not automatically considered a try for goal.

Originally Posted by ilyazhito

Touching the ring and touching the backboard are mostly similar, but there are ... situations where there is a difference.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

... this question still bugs me:

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?
My answer: 61) Yes. Official is correct.

Official didn't rule an indirect technical foul to the head coach? Is that what he did incorrectly?