The author of the exams for IAABO is a stubborn cuss and even when proven wrong on a question last year he insisted he was right.

Several Choices ???
 

Which question?

There was a question on an AP throw-in and a ball kicked on the throw-in by the opposing team and whether or not the AP arrow was switched. It should not, of course, because the throw-in was not completed. There are probably some old threads about it on here.

First Marked Lane Spaces, And Fight Starters ???
 

Mark T. DeNucci, Sr: Could you take a look at these two questions also:

36 Team A is awarded a free throw. B-1 and B-2 are occupying the marked lane spaces closest to the end line. The official rules that B-1 and B-2 are occupying the proper lane spaces. Is the official correct?
36. No Rule 8 Section 1 Art 4b.c.d
According to 8-1-4c, the first marked lane spaces on each side of the lane, above and adjacent to the neutral-zone marks, shall be occupied by opponents of the free thrower. 8-1-4b states that the lane areas from the end line up to, and including, the neutral-zone marks, shall remain vacant. Question 36 clearly states marked lane “spaces” closest to the endline, not marked lane “areas”, so, in my opinion, the official was correct, and the correct answer to question 36 should be yes.

74. A-1 and B-1 begin to fight while the ball is live. A-6 and A-7 leave the bench to enter the playing court. B-6 also enters the playing court and begins fighting with A-6. The official rules a flagrant technical foul on A-6, A-7 and B-6, charges team A with three team fouls, team B with two team fouls, charges the coach of team A with two indirect technical fouls, team B’s coach with one indirect technical foul, awards team B two free throws, followed by the ball for a division line throw-in. Is the official correct?
74. Yes Rule 10 Section 4 Art 5 Penalty; Rule 10 Section 4 Art 1g; Rule 10 Section 6 Penalty 8a (1) 8b (1) (2)
The official, in this very complicated situation, appears to penalize everything that occurred correctly: flagrant technical foul on A-6, A-7 and B-6, team A charged with three team fouls, team B with two team fouls, coach of team A charged with two indirect technical fouls, team B’s coach with one indirect technical foul, awards team B two free throws, followed by the ball for a division line throw-in. However, the official did not penalize "A-1 and B-1", who started this whole mess by fighting while the ball was live, with flagrant double personal fouls, so, in my opinion, the official was incorrect, and the correct answer should be no.

Thanks. Merry Christmas.

Both answers seem right to me.

How, Please ???
 

How can the official be correct when he failed to penalize the two players who started the fight?

How, Please ???
 

Team A is awarded a free throw. B-1 and B-2 are occupying the marked lane spaces closest to the end line. The official rules that B-1 and B-2 are occupying the proper lane spaces. Is the official correct?

How is he wrong?

Endline-Vacant Lane Area-Neutral Zone Mark-Marked Lane Space (Closest To Endline)-Second Marked Lane Space ...

Billy Mac,

The way that I read question 36 was that B1 and B2 were in the spaces closest to the end-line, which would be below the block(???), which would be a violation. I do agree with 74 not stating anything about A1 and B1 starting the fight and being assessed flagrant technical fouls (10-3-9) just team fouls for their parts but everything else is correct.

The crux of the question is about how to penalize bench personel who enter the court during a fight and how the coach is penalized, and how many FT's are taken as a result of those actions. The penalty for the initial fight is assumed and is included in the total foul counts.

Live Ball Contact ???
 

Technical for live ball contact? Please convince me that these should not be flagrant personal fouls. It won't be too hard to convince because I've always been confused about fighting penalties, especially when team members come off the bench. Thank goodness I've never had a fight in 28 years.

Can two divorced men share an apartment without driving each other crazy?
 

As Felix Unger said, "Never ASSUME, because when you ASSUME, you make an *** of U and ME."

As far as I know, the only pre-assumption for the exam is written on the top: “In the act of shooting’’ on this examination means the ball is still in the player’s hand.

Space Versus Area ...
 

There is no longer any language in the rule book that refers to the portion of the court below the block as a "space". The rules now refer to this area as the vacant lane "area". The first "space", or more correctly, "marked lane space", is now above the block, and is thus the closest "space" to the endline.

Fighting that starts when the ball is live or dead is a flagrant technical. Just because there is contact during a live ball doesn't make it a personal foul. You are enforcing the fighting, not the contact. Similar to the "bumping of chests" in another current thread by "A1 and B1" yes they made contact during a live ball, but you enforce the unsporting behavior not the contact.

Sounds Good So Far, Keep Going ...
 

Sounds good, but as usual, do have any citations?

Also can we simplify this, only two players, no bench players involved. While the ball is live, without the official observing any previous unsporting gestures, language, or contact, A1 punches B1. The ball is dead with the foul, not the whistle, but to further simplify, let's say that immediately after the whistle, so the ball is definitely dead, B1 punches A1. Can this be a false double, flagrant personal (live ball contact) on A1, flagrant technical (dead ball flagrant, or intentional, contact) on B1? Or is it a double foul, and I realize that both fouls must be personal, or technical, for it to be a double foul, but since one is a live ball foul, and one is a dead ball foul ... I'm confused. I need a citation. Quickly. Please.

If A1 throws a punch at B1, it is a technical foul, even if the punch misses. The punch itself is an illegal act. The contact is secondary. The ball is dead when he started the swing.