Oh My Gosh!
 

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.:eek: 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.:eek: Rule 9-9-1

My head is spinning

Looks like IAABO got two wrong?

The answer sheet for 74 must be wrong. The interpretation we were given and have been teaching to our new candidates is that the AP throwin never properly eneded in this sitch so while the arrow would not change, the new throw-in is for the kicking violation and is not an AP.

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.

Simple: they just reversed those two answers by mistake. :)

I would say they have two incorrect answers. I will let our interpreter know.

Only 2 wrong so far? IAABO is having one of their better years then.

I think the answers are correct. It's the questions that are reversed.

Question 74
 

is yes. The throw in never ended because the throw in doesn't end until it is legally touched! It was never legally touched, so therefore it never ended,give the ball back to the team that was inbounding and continue....???

Actually, no.

You are correct that the throw-in never ended because the kick is not a legal touch. Because of that, the arrow does not change. However, the next throw-in is for the kicked ball violation. That's why the answer is no.

Midmadnees already explained why the answer sheet is CORRECT on Q74.

As for Q76, the answersheet is ALSO correct. The situation described is NOT a backcourt violatoin. The Official ruled that it was. But what the QUESTION asked was, "Is the official correct?" The official is NOT correct, so the answer to the question is NO.

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.

And I explained why it is incorrect. :)

The answer should YES. It is a backcourt violation because even though B-2 batted the ball, A-2 was the last to touch the ball with frontcourt status (bounced in the frontcourt; doesn't touch in the backcourt), then is also the first to touch in the backcourt.

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.

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

That's a switch. :p

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.

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...

I'll rule a BC violation. B2 is last to touch the ball in the FC but not the last to touch the ball while the ball still has FC status. I hope I'm not contradicting myself here.

What if B2 is the last to touch in bounds, and instead of the ball landing out of bounds, it is caught by A1 out of bounds before the ball ever bounces out of bounds? A1 caused the violation, No? Granted, it's comparing granny smiths with macintosh, but in my little brain they're still apples.

Okay, now consider this play.
A1 dribbling from BC to front court. While he's still standing in the BC, B1 reaches and swats the ball (now ending the dribble and the accompanying "three points" requirement thus giving the ball FC status while still maintaining Team A control) into the air behind A1. B1 is standing completely in the FC. A1 steps back and catches the ball before it hits the floor.

By your interp, this is a violation.

You are.

A's touch in the backcourt gives the ball backcourt status simultaneous with the touch. Agree? Now, consider this part of the rule: "touched...the ball in the frontcourt before it went to the backcourt". Who was the last person to touch it BEFORE it went to the backcourt? B2.

Basically, you draw a line in time at the very instant the ball gains BC status. If the last player to touch the ball before that point in time was team A and the first player after that point in time was team A, you have a violation. (Assuming team control).

It's not close enough to compare...having the ball go to the BC is not a violation as going OOB is.

Ok, read and thought 2 different things, please accept my apologies and promises that I won't try to mix work and officiating at the same time. I'm still sticking with a BC violation; however, I will keep an open mind. Thanks

Using this logic, <B>every</B> tip by the defense would be a violation. That is not how the rule is written.

Is it though? Team A never had TC in the FC, a requirement of 9.9.1....

Is it a requirement?
Team has control.
Ball gains FC status.

No, my interp requires Team A to have control of the ball in the FC. Your twist on the situation doesn't provide that.

Look, I'll agree that there's a gray area around the "last to touch or be touched in the frontcourt" and that part could be construed as missing from the requirements needed to call a BC violation. But, I can't bring myself to say that B2 caused the ball to go in the BC, may have helped it along but the ball still had FC status when A2 caught the ball.

Yeah I suppose you do have team control, albeit during an interrupted dribble when tipped...and you do have FC "status" for the ball...even more reason why this interp is BS....

And in Snaqs play Team A has team control and the ball has FC status after B2 batted it up into the air. So by the new interp, it is a BC violation when A2 catches the ball without letting it bounce.

PS kbilla this is NOT an interrupted dribble. The dribble has ended when B2 knocked the ball away.

I never implied every, if the ball gains BC status (bouncing once in the BC would do) prior to A2 grabbing the ball I would have nothing.

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...

Notice, there's no "and" in the rule.

We're not talking about the rule. We're talking about the new interp.

I've already stated that I believe that the new interp is poor and does not mesh with the text of the rule.

My point is that you are trying to have it both ways. You wish to call one play by the text of the rule and another according to the new interp. That doesn't work.

Although the more I think about it, there is no team control in the FC in your example. I think the way the rule is written, there needs to be team control with both the team A players and the ball in the FC before you can have a BC violation..we at least have this much in this bogus interp...I still think this interp is BS, but I don't think we can extrapolate it to this point...JMHO..

Nevermind, complete brainfart...what happens when you try to immerse yourself in the text of the rules...you are correct, this would be a violation as well and another reason why this interp stinks..

Totally agree.

I agree B2 is the last to touch player in the FC to touch the ball. I'm just having a problem with saying B2 caused the ball to get to the BC.

And it's these analogies that continue to haunt me.

The ball has status of FC or BC.
Team control continues once it's been established.

Once team control has been established, and the ball gains FC status, there is now team control in the FC.

There is no requirement for Player control to be established in the FC.

Otherwise, a pass from A1 (in the BC) to A2 (in the FC) that is never caught by A2 but instead gets muffed back to A1 would not be a violation. But it is.

But again the million $ question is how are you going to call it if it happens? I don't remember ever having this happen, but it seems so routine of a non-call, I actually probably did but let it go at the time...what are you going to do now?

I'm calling my last play (post 47) a violation. It meets all the requirements by rule and interp.

You are talking about the tip by B in the FC of a ball being dribbled by A in the BC? You are calling that a violation?

No. I'm talking about the muffed pass from BC to FC that bounces back into the BC before being retrieved by the passer.

Gotcha, agreed on that...but you are not calling the play specifically spelled out in interp in question a BC violation? I don't agree with it, but I have a hard time not calling it if it is specifically spelled out that way..

Same play setup, but change A2 to B2 and stipulate that A1 catches the rebound without the ball bouncing in the backcourt.

What do you call now? :eek:

Good point.

By rule or by interp? :D

Exactly my point. They generate different answers. :(

Although it's dark here, the clouds broke and the sun is shining. Thanks for helping me better understand the rule requirements for a BC violation in a somewhat confusing situation (at least for me) and especially how they don't jive with the Fed interpretation. It is much appreciated.

Note that there is no need for a player from team A to even touch the ball in the FC for a ball to be in team control in the frontcourt.

Player A1, holding the ball in the backcourt (implies team control), passes the ball towards A2. The pass is a bounce pass and the bounce occurs in the FC (esablished FC status for the ball, even without touching a player). If that just happens to be a cross-court pass right at the division line (e.g. A1 straddling the division line to A2 also staddling the division line), that will be a violation even though not team A player ever touched the ball in the FC.

The thing to remember is that it is not a violation ot cause the ball to get to the BC. That is where it is different from OOB calls.

Or, consider a drop-pass from A1 right at the division line, FC side.
A1 drops the ball for a pass to A2, who is trailing. A2 grabs the ball before gaining FC status. Violation.

Question # 76
 

Exact question is listed as SITUATION 10 in the Rules Interpretations section of the new NFHS Officials' Quarterly (Winter 2007). The RULING is a backcourt violation on Team A.

Yup, and the interpretation disagrees with the rule.