Oh My Gosh!

[WhistlesAndStripes]

Originally Posted by cmckenna

76 is wrong. The ball has not touched in the backcourt yet so B did not cause it to go BC. A did when they touched it in BC.

I disagree. Anytime that a player from Team B is the last to touch the ball in the frontcourt, followed by a player from Team A being the first to touch it in the backcourt, there is no BC violation.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Whistles & Stripes

I disagree. Anytime that a player from Team B is the last to touch the ball in the frontcourt, followed by a player from Team A being the first to touch it in the backcourt, there is no BC violation.

Go to the NFHS website, and look at the 2007-08 Interpretations:
http://www.nfhs.org/web/2007/10/2007...s_interpr.aspx
This is Situation 10.

[Mark Padgett]

So I guess if you pass the IAABO test, you can qualify as I Am A Bad Official?

That's a switch.

[26 Year Gap]

Originally Posted by Whistles & Stripes

I disagree. Anytime that a player from Team B is the last to touch the ball in the frontcourt, followed by a player from Team A being the first to touch it in the backcourt, there is no BC violation.

I will agree here. It seems wrong, but the last touch is really the key piece of info here. Although the player on Team A gives the ball backcourt status by virtue of his feet being in backcourt, he did not CAUSE the ball to go into the backcourt, so there should be no violation. Sorta like an ugly jump stop can LOOK like a travel when it isn't.

The other one is definitely wrong. 2nd throw in is for the kick violation, not the AP.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by 26 Year Gap

I will agree here. It seems wrong, but the last touch is really the key piece of info here. Although the player on Team A gives the ball backcourt status by virtue of his feet being in backcourt, he did not CAUSE the ball to go into the backcourt, so there should be no violation. Sorta like an ugly jump stop can LOOK like a travel when it isn't.

I don't disagree with your logic.

The problem is the logic disagrees with the interp.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

I don't disagree with your logic.

The problem is the logic disagrees with the interp.

And the interp disagrees with the rule.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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?

[Zoochy]

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

Oh My Gosh!

[BillyMac]

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.

[26 Year Gap]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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.]

[Zoochy]

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.

[26 Year Gap]

Originally Posted by Zoochy

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.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Zoochy

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 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.