IAABO Refresher Exam
 

Sometime after Dec. 01st there was a thread regarding a question on this year's IAABO Refresher Exam. I made a post in the thread that I would get a hold of Roger MacTavish and discuss the quesiton with him. Unfortunately life outside of basketball intervened and I have yet to get in touch with Roger. To make matters worse I cannot remember the question number nor can I remember the thread. And no senile old geezer jokes from you young whippersnappers either, :D. So if somebody can help me, it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.

MTD, Sr.

I think it had to do with one of the first 75 questions.

Not funny because I was making a serious request.

MTD, Sr.

"That's all I can stands, I can't stands no more! (Popeye) ...
 

I remember your post, and your generous offer, and the fact that I was looking forward to your update, but I can't find your post, even using the Advanced Search function.

So, why don't you start with this question? I thought that one of the guidelines for goaltending was that it had to be a try. I got this one wrong, and, "I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this anymore!":

2008-09 IAABO Refresher Exam
7. A-1, from behind the 3 point line, throws the ball toward his/her basket for a catch and dunk. The ball is on its downward flight outside the cylinder above the ring level and in the judgment of the official has a chance of entering the basket when A-2 catches the ball and dunks it. The official rules this is goaltending and disallows the basket. Is the official correct?
7. Yes Rule 5 Section 2 Art 1; Rule 4 Section 22, Rule 9 Section 12

To me, throwing the ball toward the basket for a catch and dunk is a pass, not a try.

That one was discussed at length at our meeting. Our interpreter just finished a 4 year stint on the rules committee. There were a couple of others as well. Not sure if the national website has them posted yet. They had a couple last year that were argued with the test author including one regarding a kicked ball on an AP arrow throw-in and the disagreement led to some clarification that the throw in was not legally completed so the new throw was on the violation. And the AP arrow does not change.

BillyMac:

That is a good one. I have been lax this year in my preseason reading and was going over the Exam Thursday night while watching Andy go through swim practice and the the answer to the question hit me in the face like a cement block. It is on my list of questions that I will discuss with Roger.

MTD, Sr.

Mark,

One that we discussed at length on the NFHS forum was:

55. A-1’s pass is in flight to A-2 when A-3 and B-3 commit a double personal foul. The official awards the ball back to team A nearest the spot the ball was located when the fouls occurred. Is the official correct?

55. No Rule 4 Section 36 Art 2a; Rule 4 Section 12 Art 2

One member who "spoke IABBO" said that the question denoted the physical location that the ball was over but location could also be where A1 had the ball in PC when the pass was made, which would mean the official in the question was correct.

Any thoughts?

Here's My Thought ...
 

4-4-3: A ball which is in flight retains the same location as when it was last
in contact with a player or the court.

I understand the rule and applying it, I say the answer is wrong. Official should inbound at the location of the ball at the time of the fouls, which is where A1 had it last. Should the question be read differently?

As long as you understand the rule (and you seem to), the only people who should care whether the question should be worded differently are those considering whether to use the question next year.

There is no way the IAABO answer is correct. The question tests two things: what happens when you have a double foul (Answer: Point of interruption [4-36-2a]) and who has control when the ball is being passed between teammates (Answer: team control remains with Team A, [4-12-2]).

The language from the question: "The official awards the ball back to team A nearest the spot the ball was located when the fouls occurred" is nearly verbatim from the rule cited for point of interruption: a throw-in to the team that was in control "at a spot nearest to where the ball was located" when play was interrupted.

If the question sought to test knowledge of "ball location," then the answer key would have cited 4-4-3: a ball in flight retains the location of the player who last touched it.

Poorly Worded Question, And/Or Answer Citation ???
 

Agree. Poorly worded question. Can it be fixed?

55. A-1’s pass is in flight to A-2 when A-3 and B-3 commit a double personal foul. The official awards the ball back to team A nearest the spot the ball was, midway between A-2, and A-3, when the fouls occurred. Is the official correct?

55. No Rule 4 Section 36 Art 2a; Rule 4 Section 12 Art 2; 4-4-3:

How's that. Better?

Sure. Change the answer from "no" to "yes." Everything else is correct. If the test sought to test knowledge of "ball location" then your fix is fine.

I Hate This Exam !!!
 

With my "fix" the correct answer should be no. The official should have awarded the ball to Team A at the spot closest to A-1, not midway between A-2 and A-3, because a ball which is in flight retains the same location as when it was last in contact with a player or the court.

If you're not familiar with IAABO Refresher Exams, they test all kinds (plural) of rule knowledge in one question, and in many cases the answer hinges on only one word, change that one word, and the answer changes. Sometimes the question is about the rule, sometimes it's about a definition in the rule, sometimes it's about the penalty, sometimes it's about where the penalty (throwin) will be enforced. I hate these exams!!!

IAABO had to publish an "errata" to four questions on this year's refresher exam. With that proven record for errors, I am more likely to believe a typographical error than anything else.

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.

Not from the case book but...

Rule 10-3 Player Technical Art. 9...Be charged with fighting. Penalty Flagrant Foul.

Penalties (Rule 10 Summary) 8. Fighting
a. Players on the court:
(1) Corresponding number from each team (as in question 74) - double flagrant fouls, all participants are disqualified, no free throws are awarded, ball is put in play at the POI.


In my 10 years as a basketball official I have had only one near fight that I was able to squash. Late in the game had a two-hand push in the back by B1 that sent A1 into the bleachers (intentional foul). A1 comes out and shoves B1 (technical foul). B6 comes off the bench and gets to half court (flagrant technical foul). We were able to get things settled down, A1 shot two FTs, member of B shot two FTs, and member of A shot two more FTs and awarded team A with ball at division line.

When I was younger I did watch my home town team get involved with a full on fight where a players dad took a shot at one of our players after going into the stands to save a ball, our player retaliated, father's son came to his rescue, and then all heck broke loose. Officials rightly ended the game right then and there in the late 3rd quarter. Very disappointing when stuff like that happens. I honestly don't remember if enough players would have been left to finish the game.

False Double ???
 

I've got one from the casebook, however it doesn't exactly fit my simple situation, but it does demonstrate that live ball contact is a personal, not a technical foul. Ignore the players coming off the bench. Pay attention to the call on the two players that started the fight:

10.4.5 SITUATION A: Post-players A1 and B1 begin punching each other and play is stopped. Two substitutes from each team leave the bench area and come onto the court. The four substitutes: (a) do not become involved in the fight; (b) all become involved in the fight; or (c) substitutes A6, A7, and B6 do not participate in the fight, but B7 becomes involved in the fight. RULING: A1 and B1 are charged with flagrant fouls and are disqualified, but no free throws result from the double personal flagrant fouls. The four substitutes are charged with flagrant technical fouls and are disqualified. No free throws are awarded for the simultaneous technical fouls as the number of bench personnel leaving the bench and the penalties are the same for both teams. In (a), one technical foul is also charged indirectly to the head coach of each team. In (b), each head coach is charged indirectly with two technical fouls (one for each bench player leaving the bench and becoming involved in the fight). In (c), the Team A head coach is charged indirectly with one technical foul and the Team B head coach is indirectly charged with two technical fouls (one for substitutes B6 and B7 leaving the bench, and one for B7 becoming involved in the fight). In all situations, the ball is put in play at the point of interruption. (4-36; 7-5-3b)

In my simple case (A1 punches, dead ball, whistle, B2 punches), should this be treated as a false double foul? It can't be a double foul since both fouls of a double foul must be personal, or both fouls must be technical, by definition:

4-19-8: Double fouls:
a. A double personal foul is a situation in which two opponents commit personal fouls against each other at approximately the same time.
b. A double technical foul is a situation in which two opponents commit technical fouls against each other at approximately the same time.

I'm still confused. My best guess would be false double, first one flagrant personal, second one, flagrant technical. I can be convinced otherwise, so please don't give up guys.

Interesting that the case book just uses "punches" rather than "fighting" as the question states. Either way flagrant and disqualified. Semantics may be confusing. Make sure coach is assessed indirects as required.

Fighting is a flagrant act and can occur when the ball is dead or live.
 

4-18: Fighting is a flagrant act and can occur when the ball is dead or live. Fighting includes, but is not limited to combative acts such as:
ART. 1 An attempt to strike, punch or kick by using a fist, hands, arms, legs
or feet regardless of whether contact is made.
ART. 2 An attempt to instigate a fight by committing an unsporting act that
causes a person to retaliate by fighting