I don't disagree with your logic.

The problem is the logic disagrees with the interp.

And the interp disagrees with the rule.

Ding, ding, ding... we have a winner.

BTW shouldn't W&S bother to read the new rules and interps before he opens his big yap and makes a fool out of himself? :D

You and s/he should both read 4.42.5 under the "comments on the 2007-08 revisions" section in the case book.

Of course, it's easier if someone just mails you the answers.

Oh My Gosh!
 

Here are the 2 problem questions.

I have 2007 IAABO Refresher Exam.
Question 74: During an Alternating throw-in, A-1's throw-in is intentionally kicked. Official awards the ball back to Team A and rules this is still alternating possession throw-in. Is the official correct?
The answer sheet says YES. Rule 4-42-5

Question 76: A-1, who has the ball in the frontcourt passes the ball toward A-2. B-2 bats the ball to the floor in A's frontcourt so it bounces toward the backcourt. A-1 runs into A's backcourt and catches the ball before it strikes the floor. The official rules this is a backcourt violation. Is the official correct?
The answer sheet says NO. Rule 9-9-1

My head is spinning

http://forum.officiating.com/showthread.php?t=39251

2007 IAABO Refresher Exam Question 74 And 76
 

2007 IAABO Refresher Exam

Question 74: During an Alternating throw-in, A-1's throw-in is intentionally kicked. Official awards the ball back to Team A and rules this is still alternating possession throw-in. Is the official correct?
The answer sheet says YES. Rule 4-42-5

We have been told that the answer key is wrong and that the answer should be NO

Question 76: A-1, who has the ball in the frontcourt passes the ball toward A-2. B-2 bats the ball to the floor in A's frontcourt so it bounces toward the backcourt. A-1 runs into A's backcourt and catches the ball before it strikes the floor. The official rules this is a backcourt violation. Is the official correct?
The answer sheet says NO. Rule 9-9-1

B-2 caused the ball to go into the backcopurt, no violation.

That is being questioned to Peter Webb & Mary Struckoff. A ball in the air has the status of where it was. A ball that passes over an OOB line but is in the air is not OOB till it touches something. Player A being BC causes the ball to be BC by catching it in the air. I believe this one will be changed. [Yes, I know my reasoning has changed. Also had our refresher exam between posts. Our interpreter is on the rules committee. Will have the ruling once all the refreshers are completed.]

This is straight from the NFHS.org web page on 2007-2008 Basketball interpretations.

"SITUATION 10: A1, in the team's frontcourt, passes to A2, also in the team's frontcourt. B1 deflects the ball toward Team A's backcourt. The ball bounces only in Team A's frontcourt before crossing the division line. While the ball is still in the air over Team A's backcourt, but never having touched in Team A's backcourt, A2 gains possession of the ball while standing in Team A's backcourt. RULING: Backcourt violation on Team A. Team A was still in team control and caused the ball to have backcourt status. Had A2 permitted the ball to bounce in the backcourt after having been deflected by B1, there would have been no backcourt violation. (4-4-1; 4-4-3; 9-9-1)"

http://www.nfhs.org/web/2007/10/2007...s_interpr.aspx

It's the same as question 76 in the IAABO refresher test. This ruling says A2 has caused the violation. So based on the IAABO answer, they disagree with NFHS.

The guy who wrote the test disagrees. It is likely to see IAABO rule an incorrect answer on that question.

Official word from Peter Webb on IAABO #74 is that the throw in was not legally touched. The new throw in is due to the kick. The AP arrow stays where it was. The official answer on the test is indeed wrong.

Have not heard back on #76 yet.

The situation may say that...but it is wrong. The situation you reference is in direct contradiction with the rule book. It is never a violation to cause the ball to have backcourt status. Its a violation to be the last team to touch the ball before and the first team to touch the ball after the ball gains BC status (while in team control). This rule has been this way for decades and the rule is still that way.

Let's see...NFHS 9.9.1 states "A player shall not be the first to touch a ball after it has been in team control in the front court, if he/she or a teammate last touched or was touched by the ball in the frontcourt before it went to the backcourt"

I agree with Camron on this one, the kicker to me is "if he/she or a teammate last touched or was touched by the ball in the frontcourt". What it comes down to is what does "touched by the ball in the frontcourt" mean? Do they mean "touched by the ball while the player has FC status", or "touched by the ball while the ball has FC status". I would contend that they are referring to being touched by the ball while the player has FC status. The ball cannot have FC and BC status at the same time, and this is what you would have to imply to call a BC violation here. You would have to say that A1 was the last to touch the ball in the frontcourt and A1 is also the first to touch it in the BC. Well since A1 touched it only once, how can A1 cause the ball to have both FC & BC status at the same time? If you believe as I do that the rule means that a teammate cannot be the last to touch the ball while the player has FC status, then this interp runs counter to the rule...that being said, the interp is what it is...the question then is how are you going to call this, in keeping with the interp or the rule? I suppose I will follow the interp even though I don't agree it is consistent, at least you have a leg to stand on by following it..

I totally disagree. I don't have current rule books with me but the online version of 9-1-1 says... A player shall not be the first to touch a ball after it has been in team control in the frontcourt, if he/she or a teammate last touched or was touched by the ball in the frontcourt before it went to the backcourt. It does not say the ball has to have BC status before the player touches it to rule this a BC violation. Team had team control in the FC, A2 is the last to touch it in the FC and lands in the BC.

What if B2 is the last to touch in the FC, and instead of the ball landing in the BC, it is caught by A1 in the BC before the ball ever bounces in the BC?

What do you mean "lands in the BC"? A2 never jumped. A2 was in the backcourt when he/she touched it. What you have to believe in order to make this a BC violation is that the ball had FC status, was touched by A2 last when it had FC status ("if he/she or a teammate last touched or was touched by the ball in the FC before it went to the BC"), then simultaneously it also has BC status at the same time by being touched by A2 who is in the BC...it just doesn't make sense...again, understand this is the interp, but it is not consistent with the rule...