Only two points?

[just another ref]

Originally posted by nine01c
The 2003 IAABO Refresher Test had this question (close enough to have the same ruling; A sub at the table is still bench personnel until beckoned).

#79 Team A is behind by three points when A-1 in front of the team B bench attempts a 3-point try at the buzzer. A team B player comes off the bench and blocks the ball just after A-1 releases it. Official charges team B with a flagrant technical foul and awards team A three free throws. Is the official correct?

Answer: Yes Rule 2-3 (Ha! almost like 9.01c)

Not saying this is or is not a good solution. What I want to know is how they can base a question on the use of
rule 2-3? Don't misunderstand, I think rule 2-3 is a good and necessary part of the book, but the very nature of the rule requires it to be so broadly worded that I could not imagine (until now) using it as the basis for the answer to a test question.

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by just another ref
Not saying this is or is not a good solution. What I want to know is how they can base a question on the use of
rule 2-3? Don't misunderstand, I think rule 2-3 is a good and necessary part of the book, but the very nature of the rule requires it to be so broadly worded that I could not imagine (until now) using it as the basis for the answer to a test question.

They seem to be saying that this is a case where a specific rule is not applicable, like when an official mistakenly chops time in.

[just another ref]

Originally posted by nine01c
#79 Team A is behind by three points when A-1 in front of the team B bench attempts a 3-point try at the buzzer. A team B player comes off the bench and blocks the ball just after A-1 releases it. Official charges team B with a flagrant technical foul and awards team A three free throws. Is the official correct?

Answer: Yes Rule 2-3 (Ha! almost like 9.01c)


They took into consideration that it was a 3-point try, thus the three free throws (would be two free throws had it been a 2-point try). It is flagrant because it displays unacceptable conduct, and technical because it is a noncontact act which is extreme or abusive, occuring at any time. Rule 4-19-4

We're starting a new thread here, but the more I look at this, the more I have a problem with it. 2-3 gives the referee the right to add an odd free throw to the technical foul penalty? The penalty for a technical foul is
a point specifically covered in the rules, therefore 2-3 does not apply.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

I just received my IAABO 2003-04 Refresher Test and the answers to it last week and I have not looked at it. Not only that, due to my knee rehab, I did not attend the Spring 2003 and Fall 2003 IAABO meetings so I did not take part in the questions on this year's test. But tomorrow I will email Roger MacTavish with everybody's concern's about the answer to Question #79.

MTD, Sr.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
I just received my IAABO 2003-04 Refresher Test and the answers to it last week and I have not looked at it. Not only that, due to my knee rehab, I did not attend the Spring 2003 and Fall 2003 IAABO meetings so I did not take part in the questions on this year's test. But tomorrow I will email Roger MacTavish with everybody's concern's about the answer to Question #79.

Why bother? Roger McTavish's opinion doesn't mean anything more than the opinion of the rawest first-year rookie on this Forum. IAABO can interpret the rules anyway that they want to. That still doesn't make their interpretation an official, valid interpretation. Only NFHS and the State governing bodies can issue those. The IAABO exam is meaningless to most of us,also.

I certainly don't have anything against IAABO, Mark. I actually was a member for many years, and I think that it is a good organization. What IAABO doesn't have is any kind of official standing when it comes to the rules, unless it happens to be in one of the few states that may happen to use IAABO as their State governing body. Care to argue that?

[JRutledge]

you do whatever the hell you want to do. Because I for one am not going to concern myself over the most unusual play that would have to happen in my career for this to even be an issue. We have officials that cannot call the basic foul or basic violation and we are debating what would we do in a once in a life time play. I have not heard one person say this has happen to them, but this play was a "what if" situation. And if you guys want to argue over the many "what if's" situation, be my guest. I do not know that the NF or NCAA knows this play is even a concern to worry about. Why are we concerned then?

Peace

[NICK]

Interesting scenario, I referee to Fiba rules only and if I had a query on any ruling I would email Fiba directly and get a reply back back within 2 days. I think I know what I would do in this situation. Do you in the U.S. not have anybody who has the final say about certain rulings?

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by NICK
Interesting scenario, I referee to Fiba rules only and if I had a query on any ruling I would email Fiba directly and get a reply back back within 2 days. I think I know what I would do in this situation. Do you in the U.S. not have anybody who has the final say about certain rulings?

Why would we need someone to tell us what to do on a situation that might never happen? Seriously, that is what the casebook is for. But to answer you question, that is what our state representatives are for. And to be honest with you, I would not want to waste anyone's time with this situation. NF only creates rules to follow, they do not govern how all things are done in a state. So no, there is not one individual that is going to come back and make a ruling that everyone will agree with.

Peace

[NICK]

JR, thanks for the prompt reply. I suppose we can consider ourselves lucky to referee to one set of rules only. Makes our job that much easier.

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by NICK
JR, thanks for the prompt reply. I suppose we can consider ourselves lucky to referee to one set of rules only. Makes our job that much easier.

The thing I think many of you international officials do not understand, this is not a problem. We have different governing bodies depending on what state you live in. And that is the only body that matters. The National Federation has many states that are members in the United States (not all 50 BTW) that belong to the NF, but your individual state is the only body that matters. I am only going to get playoff games from my state body which is the Illinois High School Association. What the ruling is in Ohio means nothing to me. And the NF might be the governing body that produces the rulebooks and gives rulings from time to time, but at the end of the day, if the IHSA wants us to do something, that is who we follow. No if's, and's or but's about it. I am sure that if any country in the world wants to have their own set of rules followed that are not word for word FIBA, I am sure they can do it for a specific league. Just like the NBA has their own set of rules and guidelines in America.

FIBA governs specific competitions and leagues. But if a league or group chooses not to be apart of FIBA, I am sure that is possible to have their own set of rules to participate under? Is this not correct?

Peace

[BK]

I thought all this silly bickering was found on the McGriff board and this board was reserved for serious discussion. Silly Me!!!

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Why bother? Roger McTavish's opinion doesn't mean anything more than the opinion of the rawest first-year rookie on this Forum. IAABO can interpret the rules anyway that they want to. That still doesn't make their interpretation an official, valid interpretation. Only NFHS and the State governing bodies can issue those. The IAABO exam is meaningless to most of us,also.

I certainly don't have anything against IAABO, Mark. I actually was a member for many years, and I think that it is a good organization. What IAABO doesn't have is any kind of official standing when it comes to the rules, unless it happens to be in one of the few states that may happen to use IAABO as their State governing body. Care to argue that?

Roger MacTavish is the Chairman of the IAABO Rules Examination Committee and therefore is the person to contact if one has a question about the Refresher Test. IAABO does not make its own interpretations. IAABO's believes that NFHS and NCAA interpretations are the only correct interpretations. IAABO does not give intepretations per se. The Refresher Test is for the exclusive use of its members and the Examination Committee bases it answers on NFHS and NCAA rules, casebook plays, and approved rulings.

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.


Roger MacTavish is the Chairman of the IAABO Rules Examination Committee and therefore is the person to contact if one has a question about the Refresher Test.

I think what JR is trying to tell you is who cares. And honestly, you can name drop all day, it is still not going to change what anyone thinks about the rule. Folks are going to do whatever they feel like doing. Bottom line.

Peace

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

In your last two posts to this thread you made two comments that I find troubling.

I agree with you that the play we have been discussing in this thread while possible, the probability of it happening is very very small. I have found that complicated theoretical plays is a very good teaching tool, because it requires an official to break the play down into its components. When an official breaksdown the play, he sees how definitions and rules need to be applied and in the order that they need to be applied.

The more troubling comment is that people are going to do whatever they feel like doing. I can tell you from experience that too many basketball officials have that attitude. Who cares what is in the rules and and casebook, lets do whatever will get me tournament votes and more games next year.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
In your last two posts to this thread you made two comments that I find troubling.

I agree with you that the play we have been discussing in this thread while possible, the probability of it happening is very very small. I have found that complicated theoretical plays is a very good teaching tool, because it requires an official to break the play down into its components. When an official breaksdown the play, he sees how definitions and rules need to be applied and in the order that they need to be applied.

The more troubling comment is that people are going to do whatever they feel like doing. I can tell you from experience that too many basketball officials have that attitude. Who cares what is in the rules and and casebook, lets do whatever will get me tournament votes and more games next year.

I think that you may have mis-read the posts. The point that YOU are missing, Mark, is that, plain and simple, this play is NOT covered in the rules. You can break definitions and rules down for the next 6 months, and that fact won't change. You can voice your opinion on how you would handle it. So can Roger McTavish. But basically, that doesn't mean diddlypoo. If you're gonna use R2-3, then the referee that is there has to make up his mind on the best way that he thinks that it should be handled. If his thinking is different from your's or Roger McTavish's, who's to say who is right or wrong? Certainly not you or McTavish, or me or anyone else for that matter.