It is trying to find an InputOutput exception, and it won't happen since it is not "trying" that. Use the generic "Exception" instead.

1. try {
2.   if (TableauTampon[0]==0 && TableauTampon[1]==0){ // On passe l'une des deux valeurs à 1042 ...
3.     TableauTampon[0]=1042;
4.   }
5. }catch (Exception e) {
6.   e.printStackTrace();
7. }

Thanks Benja I actually had not thought to add a test on the Array size. It works perfectly

Benja's solution looks the best for this case, but if for some reason the array has not been created (maybe a condition says if it is meant to be created or not), it will crash with an exception.

Since I don't know how you handle the creation of this array, I kept the try-catch, but if you are sure it will always be created, and the only problem is that it might be empty, then I would use that "if" as well.

" if for some reason the array has not been created"
Again, a simple test is better than try/catch: if not created, the array variable is null.

True, the "out of bounds" is one thing, "null pointer" is another. Didn't meant to make confusion.

Boolean operator shortcuts allows to put all tests in the same if without risk:

1. if (TableauTampon != null && TableauTampon.length > 1) {
2.   if (TableauTampon[0] == 0 && TableauTampon[1] == 0) {
3.     // On passe l'une des deux valeurs à 1042...
4.     TableauTampon[0]=1042;
5.   }
6. }

In most cases, it is simpler to ensure the array is always initialized...