New Study Guide/Test Questions

Originally Posted by ref3808

Or the Euro Step?

Originally Posted by just another ref

I actually don't even know what that is. seriously

I'm pretty sure it is a term used to complain when a travel is called. You know, like a "crab dribble." (only heard that one the one time)

Originally Posted by ref3808

Our interpreter at last night's board meeting when referring to the Euro Step said basically that there is no such thing.

Unicorns and the Euro Step ... they don't exist.

The Euro step describes an action where an offensive player dekes left (or right) but then steps the other direction to get around a defender, who may or may not be trying to take a charge. This move is typically done in a 1 on 1 situation to beat a defender and result in a layup or dunk attempt.

It is a thing, and its legality depends (as always) on when the player gathers the ball and establishes his pivot foot. The Euro step is colloquially used by players and coaches alike to describe an illegal action which they saw in an NBA game and assumed was legal at their level as well. Here is an excellent video documenting the Euro step.

Originally Posted by just another ref

Gonna go with this one, which I've seen done incorrectly 3 or 4 times at the varsity level this year.

A1's errant pass is chased into the backcourt by A2, who recovers it at the free throw line. Ruling: B's ball at the division line.

I don't know about you guys but I prefer True/False questions where the entire question is true or false, not simply part of the question is false. I think that this question might confuse some officials into thinking this is legal.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by AremRed

I don't know about you guys but I prefer True/False questions where the entire question is true or false, not simply part of the question is false. I think that this question might confuse some officials into thinking this is legal.

I'm not following you here. What changes to the question are you suggesting? I think any varsity official who is confused by any part of this question deserves to miss it.

[La Rikardo]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

True/False When resuming play with a throw-in, the rules pertaining to ten seconds in the backcourt, three seconds in the free throw lane, and backcourt violations do not apply until after an inbounds player secures control of the ball.

I made an incorrect BC call off a throw-in earlier this season and didn't realize it was wrong until discussing it with you and another forum contributor offline. I'm totally fine with calling it the correct way, but I still stand by my assertion that, by 4-12-2-d (team control begins when a player has disposal of the ball on a throw-in), 4-12-3 (none of the events that would cause team control to end have occurred), and 9-9-1 (last touched by A in FC, first touched by A in BC, ball has been in TC the whole time by the last two rules), the rules actually imply that a throw-in by A touched by an A player with FC status which is then first touched in the BC by an A player constitutes a violation. This could be a very easy fix if 9-9-1 is amended to read "...after it has been in team and player control in the frontcourt."

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by La Rikardo

I made an incorrect BC call off a throw-in earlier this season and didn't realize it was wrong until discussing it with you and another forum contributor offline. I'm totally fine with calling it the correct way, but I still stand by my assertion that, by 4-12-2-d (team control begins when a player has disposal of the ball on a throw-in), 4-12-3 (none of the events that would cause team control to end have occurred), and 9-9-1 (last touched by A in FC, first touched by A in BC, ball has been in TC the whole time by the last two rules), the rules actually imply that a throw-in by A touched by an A player with FC status which is then first touched in the BC by an A player constitutes a violation. This could be a very easy fix if 9-9-1 is amended to read "...after it has been in team and player control in the frontcourt."

It is well documented that the change to team control during the throw-in caused undesired ripples into other rules. I believe 4.12.2 SITUATION B (b) addresses what you mention above. Throw-in from end line, tipped into backcourt by A2, then recovered by A3, no violation, because team control was never established in(bounds) in the frontcourt.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by La Rikardo

I made an incorrect BC call off a throw-in earlier this season and didn't realize it was wrong until discussing it with you and another forum contributor offline. I'm totally fine with calling it the correct way, but I still stand by my assertion that, by 4-12-2-d (team control begins when a player has disposal of the ball on a throw-in), 4-12-3 (none of the events that would cause team control to end have occurred), and 9-9-1 (last touched by A in FC, first touched by A in BC, ball has been in TC the whole time by the last two rules), the rules actually imply that a throw-in by A touched by an A player with FC status which is then first touched in the BC by an A player constitutes a violation. This could be a very easy fix if 9-9-1 is amended to read "...after it has been in team and player control in the frontcourt."

No, that wouldn't work because PLAYER control in the frontcourt is not necessary for a backcourt violation.

An example play: A1 is dribbling in the backcourt. He throws a pass to A2 who is standing in Team A's frontcourt. The ball strikes A2 in the shoulder and rebounds into the backcourt where A3 is the first to touch it.
Ruling: Backcourt violation

In fact, Team A doesn't even have to touch the ball in the frontcourt in order to violate. See rule 9-9-2 and swap an official for A2 in the above play for an example.

However, you are correct that the current text of the NFHS rules is flawed with respect to team control on throw-ins and backcourt violations. Unfortunately, it has been that way for a few years now.

[Nevadaref]

Endline running question:
After Team B scores, A1 secures the ball and steps out of bounds for the throw-in. B1 crosses the endline and fouls A1. True/False: Following the FTs for B1's intentional personal foul, Team A will retain the right to run the endline on the ensuing throw-in.

Team Control foul question:
A1 is dribbling in his backcourt when B1 bats the ball away. As A1 and B1 chase the loose ball, A1 commits a pushing foul against B1. True/False: This is a team control foul.

[Nevadaref]

If you want any fashion police questions:

1. True/False A player may legally wear a headband with the NBA logo.

2. True/False A player from the home team may legally wear gray tights.

3. True/False A player may wear an arm sleeve that is half white and half red.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

True/False: A player from the home team may legally wear gray tights.

Riddle me this: What if the tights stop above the knee, are made of a compression type material, and the uniform shorts are gray?

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Riddle me this: What if the tights stop above the knee, are made of a compression type material, and the uniform shorts are gray?

Billy, don't needlessly confuse people.

Tights extend below the knee. Compression shorts do not.
Two different items. Very clearly stated in the rules.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Tights extend below the knee.

Citation please.

(I am already aware that the NFHS is looking into this inconsistency in the rules.)

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Citation please.

(I am already aware that the NFHS is looking into this inconsistency in the rules.)

??
They're looking to create more inconsistency?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Adam

They're looking to create more inconsistency?

I've been told by my local interpreter that Peter Webb, IAABO (International)Coordinator of Interpreters, who now has a role on the NFHS Basketball Rules Committee, will be working with the committee to determine the difference between short tights, and compression shorts. With tights now legal, references to compression shorts may be making an exit from the rulebook.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Citation please.

(I am already aware that the NFHS is looking into this inconsistency in the rules.)

If you look at the comments on rules in the back of this year's rules book, you will see that the first mention of tights specifies that they extend below the knee and after that every use of the word tights carries this meaning as they are required to meet the same restrictions as leg sleeves.

[just another ref]

Take it to another thread please, Billy.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Take it to another thread please, Billy.

Done.