Rush Onto The Court ...
 

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?

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

One team technical foul, not two individual technical fouls, right?

Bench Technical ???
 

Why isn't this rule (below) utilized? Or should it be?

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.

Citation ...
 

The only citation given by IAABO for question #61 is 10-2-2.

Decisions, Decisions ...
 

Keep in mind that this is an IAABO exam with an IAABO interpretation citation.

As a purely NFHS question, with no citation as a "hint", how does one decide between a 10-5-2 Bench Technical or 10-2-2 Team Technical?

Penalties are slightly different.

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.

Six Players ...
 

Allowing six players on the court? I hate it when I hear about that happening.

I always tell my partner that if I'm the administering official on a throwin after a timeout, intermission, or substitution (or any stoppage in play), that I'm going to take my time to “sweep the floor”, including counting five players each team and looking at the table for substitutes.

I also tell my partner that if I'm not the administering official (the "off official") on a throwin after a timeout, intermission, or substitution, that my hand up in the air means I'm not ready, so, of course, we're not ready.

But this isn't after a timeout, intermission, or substitution, nor could it in any way be considered the fault of the officials.

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.

Third Choice ???
 

10-3: Substitute Technical: A substitute must not enter the court:
Art. 1 Without reporting to the scorer.
Art. 2 Without being beckoned by an official, except between quarters and during time-outs.
Penalty: Two free throws plus the ball for a division-line throw-in. One foul for either or both requirements. Penalized if discovered before the ball becomes live.

10.3.2 SITUATION: During a live ball and with the clock running, substitute A6 enters the court. RULING: A technical foul is charged if recognized by an official before the ball becomes live following the first dead ball.

Great. Now we have three choices. Thank God IAABO gave members the 10-2-2 citation reference "hint".

But it's only IAABO, not the NFHS.

We're talking about bench personnel running spontaneously onto the court during a live ball, not a sub who comes in the game prematurely.

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

Bench Personnel ...
 

Great point.

A6 and A7 are team members. Therefore, their entry onto the court can be considered illegal substitution. If assistant coaches illegally entered the court, their actions would fall under the bench personnel rules, they would each be charged a technical foul, and the head coach would receive two indirect technical fouls. B would shoot 4 free throws and get possession.

Answer hasnt changed from the two times you've previously started a thread on this

That is not correct for several reasons.

These team members were not entering the court with the intent of becoming players as would be the case for an illegal substitution.

Substitution occur at specific points in the game. If it is not a point where a substitution could legally occur, the players coming onto the court can't violation the substitution rule. Those 2 articles cover a player coming out of a timeout/intermission without reporting the substitution to a scorer or a player sitting at the table when a whistle blows that enters the court without being beckoned...that is it.

Substitution infractions are a technical on the substitute and not an indirect on the coach...largely because their actions are not really under the control of the coach.

These are team members, and just like other bench personnel, can't just run onto the court during play. Team members that enter the court without permission are covered under bench personnel and lead to an indirect on the coach.

These are not players creating a situation with more than 5 participating...they're not players...they're bench personnel.

The proper penalty is for bench personnel entering the court. They don't want us calling 10 T's if 10 team members enter the court in a situation like this and ejecting the coach, just 1 on the team and 1 indirect to the coach (unless the coach was an offender).

This is from NCAAW -- note the under NCAAW, the rule is only enforced if the actions interfere with play; in NFHS, it's enforced regardless:

A.R. 339. Team B leads, 67-66� A1’s two-point try for goal is successful, but
there is no indication that time has expired� Assuming that the successful try is
a game-ending and winning goal:
(1) Bench personnel from Team A; or
(2) Fans from Team A go onto the playing court to celebrate�
RULING: When the celebration causes a delay by preventing the ball
from being promptly made live or prevents continuous play:
(1) One bench technical foul shall be assessed to the offending team
and counts toward the team-foul total. This technical foul is also
charged indirectly to the head coach and counts toward the coach’s
ejection. Any Team B member shall attempt two free throws and play
shall resume with a throw-in by Team B at a designated spot at the
division line opposite the scorers' table.
(2) An administrative technical foul shall be assessed to the offending
team. This administrative technical foul does not apply to the team-
foul total. Any Team B member shall attempt the two free throws and
play shall resume at the point of interruption.
When the celebration does not delay or interfere with play, the
celebration shall be ignored.
(Rules 10-12.2.h.4 and Penalty and 10-12.4.g and Penalty)

Extrapolated To High School Game ...
 

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?

Don't Leave Me Hanging ......
 

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.

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.

Challenged ...
 

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?

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.

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?

Bench Personnel ...
 

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?

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.

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.

Exam Question ...
 

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.

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

Rules Knowledge ...
 

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.

BINGO!!!!!

Peace

Assistant Coach ...
 

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:

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).

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.

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.

Rules Knowledge ...
 

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.

Understanding ...
 

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.

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

Fruitful ...
 

This thread turned out to be quite fruitful.

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.

She Blinded Me With Science (Thomas Dolby, 1982) ...
 

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

Not Copying Homework ...
 

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.

Resurrection ...
 

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.

One Technical Foul ...
 

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.

Bingo ...
 

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.

Passed ...
 

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).

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.

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.

Literal Interpretation ...
 

I should have listened to Nevadaref and ilyazhito:

Indirect Technical Foul ...
 

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

Delay ???
 

Another possibility?

From December, 2018:

10-2-1-B: Team Technical: Allow the game to develop into an actionless contest, this includes the following and similar acts: Delay the game by preventing the ball from being made promptly live or from being put in play. Penalty: Two free throws plus the ball for a division-line throw-in. Penalized when they occur.

Celebration (Kool And The Gang, 1980) …
 

From January, 2017.