Rush Onto The Court ...

[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.

[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.

[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 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?

[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