Possession arrow- IAABO Refresher Exam-2005

[RefLarry]

Question 10. A held ball is called between A-1 and B-1. A-1 while getting up shoves B-1. B-1 picks up the ball and throws it at A-1. Official assesses each player with a techical foul, awards each team two free throws and resumes play by awarding the ball to team A at the division line and rules it has no affect on the possession arrow. Is the official correct?

(anybody else have this exam?)

[Jurassic Referee]

The official is correct. It's a false double foul and you penalize the fouls in the order that they occur. Part of the penalty for the last foul of the sequence committed by B1 is a throw-in awarded to A.

Welcome to the forum, Larry.

[David M]

JR I know you are correct in this but since both actions are so close timewise I was thinking of calling this a double T instead of a false double foul.

[Smitty]

Originally posted by David M
JR I know you are correct in this but since both actions are so close timewise I was thinking of calling this a double T instead of a false double foul.

I think that's the whole point of the question. In this case, one act clearly occurs before the other. In fact, the second act was a clear retaliation for the first act. They don't happen at the same time, so it's a classic false double foul scenario.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by David M
JR I know you are correct in this but since both actions are so close timewise I was thinking of calling this a double T instead of a false double foul.

I dunno....takes time for B1 to go get the ball, pick it up and throw it. The description sounded like 2 distinct and separate acts to me.

There is one advantage to a double T call imo though. A1 started the crap and B1 retaliated. A1 actually ends up gaining from the situation by getting the T possession after the FT's are over..... and I'm never fond of the instigator gaining anything out of a play like this. The double T would go to the POI, which would be an AP. That does negate A1 gaining even a minute advantage out of the situation.

Of course, if B1 woulda had the brains to just walk away from the push.......

[Smitty]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

I dunno....takes time for B1 to go get the ball, pick it up and throw it. The description sounded like 2 distinct and separate acts to me.

There is one advantage to a double T call imo though. A1 started the crap and B1 retaliated. A1 actually ends up gaining from the situation by getting the T possession after the FT's are over..... and I'm never fond of the instigator gaining anything out of a play like this. The double T would go to the POI, which would be an AP. That does negate A1 gaining even a minute advantage out of the situation.

Of course, if B1 woulda had the brains to just walk away from the push.......

I don't think you call the double T here. Team B had the advantage until B1 throws the ball. This is how fights get started. The acts happened separately. Penalize them both.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Smitty

I don't think you call the double T here. Team B had the advantage until B1 throws the ball. This is how fights get started. The acts happened separately. Penalize them both.

Doesn't a double T penalize them both also?

[Smitty]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Doesn't a double T penalize them both also?

Of course, but I think having both team shoot free throws and allowing the retaliator to appear to be punished just a bit more (by losing posession) will send a bigger message not to retaliate in these situations. Just my opinion.

[Smitty]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Um, that was kinda exactly what I was trying to get at above. The retaliator won't necessarily lose possession though. That depends on who has the arrow. It will make the arrow change eventually though if A does have the AP, so A really isn't gaining anything.

I meant after A shoots the free throws for the T B1 earned for retaliating. A will shoot the free throws and retain posession. That appears to punish the retaliation just a bit more, which I think makes sense. It's usually the retaliation that starts the fighting. Sends a message not to retaliate. Sort of. I don't know. It's so much easier to say these things here - not sure what I'd do if it really happens.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Smitty

[/B]

That appears to punish the retaliation just a bit more, which I think makes sense. It's usually the retaliation that starts the fighting. Sends a message not to retaliate.
[/B][/QUOTE]We've got different philosophies on this one. I agree that retaliation in a case like this is dumb too, but I can understand it-- especially with high school kids. Personally I'd rather send a message to a player not to instigate if I can. I always like to nail the ones who are responsible for giving me the headaches out there.

[Smitty]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

That appears to punish the retaliation just a bit more, which I think makes sense. It's usually the retaliation that starts the fighting. Sends a message not to retaliate.
[/B]

We've got different philosophies on this one. I agree that retaliation in a case like this is dumb too, but I can understand it-- especially with high school kids. Personally I'd rather send a message to a player not to instigate if I can. I always like to nail the ones who are responsible for giving me the headaches out there.
[/B][/QUOTE]

Fair enough. I think ultimately you'd have to see what happens with your own eyes. The initial shove may be a little push or it may be more severe. The kid throwing the ball may hit the other kid smack in the face. It could be called either way and either way could be justified. For the purposes of a test, however, I think they are looking for the false double foul scenario.