Oh My Gosh!

[Zoochy]

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

[Adam]

Looks like IAABO got two wrong?

[cmckenna]

Originally Posted by Zoochy

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

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.

[mbyron]

Simple: they just reversed those two answers by mistake.

[26 Year Gap]

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

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by 26 Year Gap

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.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Simple: they just reversed those two answers by mistake.

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

[MidMadness]

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....???

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by MidMadness

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.

[WhistlesAndStripes]

Originally Posted by Zoochy

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

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.

[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

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

And I explained why it is incorrect.

Originally Posted by Whistles & Stripes

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.

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.

[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.