Refresher Question Wrong

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

[/indent]How does that ruling fit with case 4.44.5.B? In it A1 gains control of the ball on the floor and it says...

"It is also traveling if A1 puts the ball on the floor, then rises and is the first to touch the ball."

Since it is not possible to travel during a dribble, the act of putting the ball on the floor must not be a dribble.

That Case Book ruling is the decision by the NFHS that the player's action is an unfair attempt to circumvent 4-44-5b. Therefore, it has been ruled a violation.
In the dribble situation, there is no such difficulty. The normal dribbling rules are simply enforced. Do so prevents the player from gaining any unfair advantage.
Think of what the consequences would be if setting the ball down on the floor and releasing it wasn't considered a dribble. A player who had already used his dribble and was trapped, could put the ball down between his legs, shield it from other players with his body, and then move to a more advantageous location or position and pick the ball back up. That would make a farce of the traveling and dribbling restrictions.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by 26 Year Gap

Once the player is playing, it is deemed legal. Reading into it you could argue an illegal number might have been the reason for its illegality, but the question does not say it was an illegal number.

Note that "illegal number" means "contains a 6 - 9". This makes the jersey illegal, so the penalty (one per person) and timeframe (discovered before the ball becomes live) the same.

If the number must be changed to match the scorebook (or vice versa), that's a different issue, penalty, timeframe, and doesn't make the jersey illegal. Thus, it doesn't apply to the question posed.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by PIAA REF

Number 15 on the IAABO exam seems to give the wrong correct answer (Manybe I am wrong, but I don't think so)

The question is as follows: Substitute B-6 enters the court while the ballis in control of team A and while the clock is running. The officials are inaware that team B has 6 players in the game. B-6 returns to the bench after which team A commits a violation/ The scorer now informs the official that team B had 6 players on the court. The Official rules no Technical foul can be assessed. Is the official correct. I said yes, the answer says no. It sights Rule 10, Section 1 Art 6: Have more than 5 team members participating simultaneously.
BUT, right under that it states Penalty: Penalized IF discovered while being violated.

So how could you have a T in the scenario above.

BTW, we never gave you the Case Book ruling on this, so here it is:

SIX IN GAME
10.1.6 SITUATION: With Team A leading 51 to 50, a held ball is called. A6 properly reports and enters the game. Time is then called by Team A. The clock shows two seconds remaining in the game. After play is resumed by a throw-in, the officials: (a) recognize that A has six players competing, but cannot get the clock stopped; or (b) do not notice Team A has six players on the court. Following the throw-in, time expires. Team B now reports to the officials that Team A had six players on the court. RULING: In (a), since one of the officials had knowledge that Team A had six players participating simultaneously and this was detected prior to time expiring, a technical foul is assessed against Team A. In (b), since it was not recognized by either official, but was called to their attention after time had expired, it is too late to assess any penalty.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by 26 Year Gap

Once the player is playing, it is deemed legal. Reading into it you could argue an illegal number might have been the reason for its illegality, but the question does not say it was an illegal number.

If they testers want you to focus upon the number, they will explicitly state "illegal number", but if they mention an illegal jersey or shirt they are referring to some other aspect of the jersey being illegal.

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Note that "illegal number" means "contains a 6 - 9". This makes the jersey illegal, so the penalty (one per person) and timeframe (discovered before the ball becomes live) the same.

Bob, My interpretation of that is different. It is my understanding that an illegal number does not make the shirt itself illegal.

For a shirt to be considered illegal something else besides the number must be wrong with it. (i.e. too many colors, illegal memorial patch, visible manufacturer's logo, etc.)

If a player were to have a number that contained a 6, 7, 8, or 9 the player would be penalized for wearing an illegal number, but not also for wearing an illegal shirt. Notice the "or" in the language of 10-3-2. To me that means that they are seperate infractions.
. . . Wear an illegal number or an illegal shirt or illegal pants/skirt.
PENALTY: (Art. 2) Each violation is penalized one time if discovered prior to ball becoming live for each designated starter and each substitute who enters.
I do not believe that it is the intent of the rule to penalize the kid twice for having one item wrong on his shirt. If that were the case, then no one could ever play with an illegal number because that team member would receive two player technical fouls and be disqualified!

[Nevadaref]

Furthermore, triple-digit numbers are also illegal even if they don't contain a numeral above 5.

For example, 333 is illegal.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Bob, My interpretation of that is different. It is my understanding that an illegal number does not make the shirt itself illegal.
[/COLOR]

Legal uniforms are described in 3-4. Violations of this are ILLEGAL uniforms, punished under 10-3-2.

That's different from an INCORRECT number, as in 3-2 and penalized under 10-1-2.

That's my only point.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Legal uniforms are described in 3-4. Violations of this are ILLEGAL uniforms, punished under 10-3-2.

That's different from an INCORRECT number [in the scorebook], as in 3-2 and penalized under 10-1-2.

That's my only point.

[I added that for clarity.]
I agree with that point. One is a Team T and the other is a Player T.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

Personally, I don't like the answer to #13 or #33.

#13, I'm not calling a T on anybody when I don't know who the remark came from. And while I realize it's an exam environment, I don;t believe this is the correct approach for teaching either.

#33, sitting the ball on the floor is NOT a dribble.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

#33, sitting the ball on the floor is NOT a dribble.

But you believe that bouncing it off your foot without it touching the floor is?

Can I get a Lah me from JR?

[BktBallRef]

A dribble is ball movement caused by a player in control who bats (intentionally strikes the ball with the hand(s)) or pushes the ball to the floor once or several times.


"...bats or pushes to..."

It doesn't say sitting or placing the ball on the floor.

And to your other point about the foot, it doesn't say that the ball has to hit the floor to be a dribble, does it?

Just another ****ed up interp by the IAABO, and by NevadaRef.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

[I added that for clarity.]
I agree with that point. One is a Team T and the other is a Player T.

The incorrect number needn't be in the scorebook -- it could be on the jersey, requiring (or providing the option) for the player to change (10-1-2d)

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

The incorrect number needn't be in the scorebook -- it could be on the jersey, requiring (or providing the option) for the player to change (10-1-2d)

True, I was thinking of a the case in which the team member was yet to play.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

A dribble is ball movement caused by a player in control who bats (intentionally strikes the ball with the hand(s)) or pushes the ball to the floor once or several times.


"...bats or pushes to..."

It doesn't say sitting or placing the ball on the floor.

And to your other point about the foot, it doesn't say that the ball has to hit the floor to be a dribble, does it?

Setting the ball down on the floor isn't pushing it to the floor? What is it? Lowering it to the floor?

As for the foot play, the rule does say "to the floor." To me that means that it actually gets there. I believe that there is solid rules support for my understanding.

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

Just another ****ed up interp by the IAABO, and by NevadaRef.

That's how it should look.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

That Case Book ruling is the decision by the NFHS that the player's action is an unfair attempt to circumvent 4-44-5b. Therefore, it has been ruled a violation.
In the dribble situation, there is no such difficulty. The normal dribbling rules are simply enforced. Do so prevents the player from gaining any unfair advantage.
Think of what the consequences would be if setting the ball down on the floor and releasing it wasn't considered a dribble. A player who had already used his dribble and was trapped, could put the ball down between his legs, shield it from other players with his body, and then move to a more advantageous location or position and pick the ball back up. That would make a farce of the traveling and dribbling restrictions.

No, it would be traveling if you apply the same principle as the case I referenced....considered the same as holding the ball for the purposes of the traveling rule.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I believe that there is solid rules support for my understanding.

Obviously you do. That doesn't mean your right.