Test questions, part 1

[ChuckElias]

Our IAABO board uses old IAABO tests as homework for our new applicants class. My job this summer is to go through the last 5 years' worth of tests and make sure that all the answers on the key are correct, given recent rule changes. So here are a few questions that I was unsure about. Maybe you guys/gals can clarify them. (There will be more; that's why this thread is "part 1".) BTW, I'm looking for HS/FED answers here.

#1) A1's three-point try is on its upward flight when A-2, located inside the three-point arc, touches the ball. Ball enters the basket. Officials award team A 2 points. Is the official correct? My answer key says no, but it has to be correct, doesn't it? 5-2-1

#2) Team A's shirts have an abbreviation, logo or mascot at the center or apex of the neckline of the game jersey. Official informs the coach that these items may not be worn in that location. Is the official correct? The key says yes, but 3-4-9 seems to say that the logo or mascot should be ok, as long as it's above the number (which the apex of the neckline is, I think).

#3) While A-1's first of two FTs is in flight, a double personal foul is called. The FT is unsuccessful. Official awards A-1 his 2nd FT with no players on the lane and then uses the AP procedure to resume play. Is the official correct? I think this year's rule change makes the official wrong here. With the double personal we go to the POI, which is the 2nd FT. So line 'em up and shoot it, right?

[M&M Guy]

#1) That exact play is listed in the casebook - 5.2.1(d). Two points because it was legally touched by a teammate within the 2 point area. Why does it matter if the ball is on it's upward flight?

#2) To be honest, I've never worried too much about this because there's nothing (realistically) I can do as an official, for that particular game. But, in looking at the rule, it seems the logo would be ok. As long as I can read the numbers, I could care less if the Chico's Bail Bonds logo is near the apex of the neckline...

#3) That's the way I read the change as well.

[BLydic]

Originally posted by ChuckElias
The key says yes, but 3-4-9 seems to say that the logo or mascot should be ok, as long as it's above the number (which the apex of the neckline is, I think).

The one point I took notice of, in regard to 3-4-9, is that the paw, halo, crown or star needs to be on an identifying name or abbreviation for decorative emphasis, not as a standalone item. IOW, it must accompany the team name which needs to be above the number ... if I'm making any sense.

But, in case 3.4 Situation A, interp. seems to allow a mascot below the number while the team name is above.

[Edited by BLydic on Aug 24th, 2005 at 08:22 PM]

[BLydic]

Originally posted by M&M Guy
Why does it matter if the ball is on it's upward flight?

I would consider a player touching a ball on it's downward flight, plus the fact that it went in, goaltending.

[Nevadaref]

Originally posted by BLydic

The one point I took notice of, in regard to 3-4-9, is that the paw, halo, crown or star needs to be on an identifying name or abbreviation for decorative emphasis, not as a standalone item. IOW, it must accompany the team name which needs to be above the number ... if I'm making any sense.

But, in case 3.4 Situation A, interp. seems to allow a mascot below the number while the team name is above.

The stand-alone star or decoration above the number is a gray area. 3-4-9 doesn't really address it. So, I can't say for sure that it is legal or illegal. I do agree with BLydic that if the decorative item appears with a written name, it needs to be above the name, if above the number, and below the name, if the name is under the number.


The casebook play 3.4 Sit A specifically permits the SCHOOL NAME above the number and the mascot NAME below the number in part (c). It says nothing about decorative items.

Chuck, I think that 3-4-9 is a poorly written rule and this is a poorly worded question, but I believe the shirt in question would be legal.

My other answers are:
#1 The try is worth two points.
#3 You are right. Charge the double foul and then continue the game with the second FT as normal with players lined-up along the lane.

[Nevadaref]

Originally posted by BLydic

I would consider a player touching a ball on it's downward flight, plus the fact that it went in, goaltending.

Yup, yup. Don't forget that the offense can be charged with goaltending too.

[crazy voyager]

with FIBA rules

1. Correct

2. same thing

3. This is a tricky one, the last FT should be shot, then if it's succesful, the defenders should gain possein though to them having the right to the ball, if the freethrow misses a jump ball situatuon occurs.

that's what I wold have called anyway

[DownTownTonyBrown]

Didn't the ruling on this change last year? (I don't have my rule book with me... but) If the throw (not necessarily shot attempt) is initiated outside the 3-point line and the ball is deflected into the basket, doesn't it constitute a successful 3-point shot?

We're not talking alley-oop here - just a deflection.

Seems like we had a significant discussion of this topic - pass is made from outside the 3-point line, deflection off players hands/head etc. and goes through the basket. THREE POINTS!

Maybe I'm forgetting. Just returning from several months in the baseball forum.

#2
Does "neckline" mean the front or the back of the shirt? Or does it matter?

[M&M Guy]

Originally posted by Nevadaref

Yup, yup. Don't forget that the offense can be charged with goaltending too.

Just coming back to this one - what about a botched alley-oop play? Ball is tossed/shot by A1 from outside the arc, and A2 doesn't time his jump right, and only gets a couple of fingers on it as it's coming down, before it gets to the cylinder. He deflects it just enough that it somehow bounces off the backboard and goes in. Is that still considered goaltending?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by DownTownTonyBrown
Didn't the ruling on this change last year? (I don't have my rule book with me... but) If the throw (not necessarily shot attempt) is initiated outside the 3-point line and the ball is deflected into the basket, doesn't it constitute a successful 3-point shot?

If it's deflected by a defender, then it's a 3 regardless whether the defender was outside or inside the arc when he deflected the ball. If the ball was touched by a teammate, it's a 3 if the teammate touched it outside the arc or a deuce if the teammate was inside the arc when he touched it. Casebook play 5.2.1SitC.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by M&M Guy

Just coming back to this one - what about a botched alley-oop play? Ball is tossed/shot by A1 from outside the arc, and A2 doesn't time his jump right, and only gets a couple of fingers on it as it's coming down, before it gets to the cylinder. He deflects it just enough that it somehow bounces off the backboard and goes in. Is that still considered goaltending?

Judgement call. If you felt that the thrown ball/shot by A1 had a chance to go in, then it's GT if A2 gets it on the way down. If you didn't think that the ball had a chance to go in, then it's a legal tip and the basket would count.

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
If you felt that the thrown ball/shot by A1 had a chance to go in, then it's GT if A2 gets it on the way down.

Nuh-uh.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by ChuckElias

Nuh-uh.

Chuck's point, which is completely correct btw, is that by rule goaltending only applies to a shot,try, tap...and not to a "thrown" ball or pass.

Jmo, but if the ball has a chance to go in, and someone goaltends it, I'm gonna deem that "throw" a shot attempt. To do otherwise just doesn't meet the purpose and intent of the goaltending rule.