Question 71. ???

imaref · #1 (**permalink**) Thu Oct 13, 2005, 12:37pm

What kind of question is this? Will someone explain why this is supposed to make sense? Please cite Rule.

It is a technical foul if thrower A1 delays returning to the court after being out of bounds for the throw-in.

Do we care if team A plays actively with four players until A1 decides when he/she decides to come on the court after their throw-in? I certainly would understand if A1 just went to the locker room or into the stands...for reason for a technical for delay.....but this situation doesn't apply, does it?

I believe the answer is FALSE. Agree?

ChuckElias · #2 (**permalink**) Thu Oct 13, 2005, 12:40pm

Quote:

Originally posted by imaref
I believe the answer is FALSE. Agree?

Nope, it's true.

Smitty · #3 (**permalink**) Thu Oct 13, 2005, 12:44pm

Why is it unreasonable to expect all players to be on the court during play?

bob jenkins · #4 (**permalink**) Thu Oct 13, 2005, 01:27pm

Quote:

Originally posted by imaref

I believe the answer is FALSE. Agree?

I believe you should read 10-3-3 and 10.3.3A

The question is on the test to be sure that officials understand that the rule change regarding leaving the court does not affect this play (that is, this play has the same ruling as it had last year).

imaref · #5 (**permalink**) Thu Oct 13, 2005, 02:00pm

Quote:

Originally posted by bob jenkins

Quote:

Originally posted by imaref

I believe the answer is FALSE. Agree?

I believe you should read 10-3-3 and 10.3.3A

The question is on the test to be sure that officials understand that the rule change regarding leaving the court does not affect this play (that is, this play has the same ruling as it had last year).

Thank you bj....

I'll review!

Camron Rust · #6 (**permalink**) Thu Oct 13, 2005, 07:23pm

Quote:

Originally posted by ChuckElias

Quote:

Originally posted by imaref
I believe the answer is FALSE. Agree?

Nope, it's true.

Are you sure? It was my understanding that this is now a violation rather than a T. Player being OOB without authorization.

Jurassic Referee · #7 (**permalink**) Thu Oct 13, 2005, 08:24pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Camron Rust

Quote:

Originally posted by ChuckElias

Quote:

Originally posted by imaref
I believe the answer is FALSE. Agree?

Nope, it's true.

Are you sure? It was my understanding that this is now a violation rather than a T. Player being OOB without authorization.

Different situations completely, Camron.

The violation now is for leaving the court for an unauthorized reason.That used to be a T.

The technical foul was and is for delaying your return after legally being OOB.

If you take a look at last years R10-3-3, they took the "leaving the court for an unauthorized reason" part out of the rule and made it a violation, but they left the "delay returning after being OOB legally" part in R10-3-3 unchanged as a T.

Iow, they separated the 2 different situations in last year's R10-3-3, moved one of them to R9-3-2 and changed the penalty to a violation--and left the other part in the altered new R10-3-3 as a T.

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Oct 13th, 2005 at 09:33 PM]

David B · #8 (**permalink**) Thu Oct 13, 2005, 11:11pm

Quote:

Originally posted by imaref
What kind of question is this? Will someone explain why this is supposed to make sense? Please cite Rule.

It is a technical foul if thrower A1 delays returning to the court after being out of bounds for the throw-in.

Do we care if team A plays actively with four players until A1 decides when he/she decides to come on the court after their throw-in? I certainly would understand if A1 just went to the locker room or into the stands...for reason for a technical for delay.....but this situation doesn't apply, does it?

I believe the answer is FALSE. Agree?

I dont know the history of the rule, but I think this is for the play run OOB with the throw-in guy staying OOB for a while and then coming onto the court in an effort to confuse the defense.

I believe there was a play several teams used to run that would gain a benefit from this player staying OOB, but I don't remember the specifics.

And then maybe I'm just dreaming?

Anyone else remember the play?

Thanks
David

Jurassic Referee · #9 (**permalink**) Fri Oct 14, 2005, 05:01am

Quote:

Originally posted by David B

Quote:

Originally posted by imaref
What kind of question is this? Will someone explain why this is supposed to make sense? Please cite Rule.

It is a technical foul if thrower A1 delays returning to the court after being out of bounds for the throw-in.

Do we care if team A plays actively with four players until A1 decides when he/she decides to come on the court after their throw-in? I certainly would understand if A1 just went to the locker room or into the stands...for reason for a technical for delay.....but this situation doesn't apply, does it?

I believe the answer is FALSE. Agree?

I dont know the history of the rule, but I think this is for the play run OOB with the throw-in guy staying OOB for a while and then coming onto the court in an effort to confuse the defense.

I believe there was a play several teams used to run that would gain a benefit from this player staying OOB, but I don't remember the specifics.

And then maybe I'm just dreaming?

Anyone else remember the play?

The play that you're talking about has been in the casebook for many years. It was 10.3.3SitB last year, and they changed the number to 10.3.3SitA this year- but the plays are still identical.

David B · #10 (**permalink**) Fri Oct 14, 2005, 08:00am

Quote:

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Quote:

Originally posted by David B

Quote:

Originally posted by imaref
What kind of question is this? Will someone explain why this is supposed to make sense? Please cite Rule.

It is a technical foul if thrower A1 delays returning to the court after being out of bounds for the throw-in.

Do we care if team A plays actively with four players until A1 decides when he/she decides to come on the court after their throw-in? I certainly would understand if A1 just went to the locker room or into the stands...for reason for a technical for delay.....but this situation doesn't apply, does it?

I believe the answer is FALSE. Agree?

I dont know the history of the rule, but I think this is for the play run OOB with the throw-in guy staying OOB for a while and then coming onto the court in an effort to confuse the defense.

I believe there was a play several teams used to run that would gain a benefit from this player staying OOB, but I don't remember the specifics.

And then maybe I'm just dreaming?

Anyone else remember the play?

The play that you're talking about has been in the casebook for many years. It was 10.3.3SitB last year, and they changed the number to 10.3.3SitA this year- but the plays are still identical.

I got my new books last night so I'll check it today.

Thanks
David

Camron Rust · #11 (**permalink**) Fri Oct 14, 2005, 09:08pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Quote:

Originally posted by Camron Rust

Quote:

Originally posted by ChuckElias

Quote:

Originally posted by imaref
I believe the answer is FALSE. Agree?

Nope, it's true.

Are you sure? It was my understanding that this is now a violation rather than a T. Player being OOB without authorization.

Different situations completely, Camron.

The violation now is for leaving the court for an unauthorized reason.That used to be a T.

The technical foul was and is for delaying your return after legally being OOB.

If you take a look at last years R10-3-3, they took the "leaving the court for an unauthorized reason" part out of the rule and made it a violation, but they left the "delay returning after being OOB legally" part in R10-3-3 unchanged as a T.

Iow, they separated the 2 different situations in last year's R10-3-3, moved one of them to R9-3-2 and changed the penalty to a violation--and left the other part in the altered new R10-3-3 as a T.

Haven't got my new books yet...get them in two weeks. I had assumed the whole item was moved to a violation. If it wasn't I think it should be.