Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyMac
8.1.4 SITUATION: A1 is at the free-throw line for the first attempt of a bonus situation. In (a), two Team B and two Team A players occupy the first and second marked lane spaces, respectively. B3 occupies one of the third marked lane spaces. A3 attempts to occupy the vacant third marked lane space; or (b) two Team B players occupy the first marked lane spaces. The offense chooses not to occupy any marked lane spaces. Two more Team B players choose to occupy the second marked lane spaces. RULING: Illegal in (a), A3 is not permitted to occupy the third marked lane space. Only two offensive players may occupy marked lane spaces during a free throw. If the improper alignment is not corrected prior to the thrower having the ball at his/her disposal, a free-throw violation shall be called on Team A immediately. Legal in (b), four defensive players are permitted in any of the first three vacant marked lane spaces.
|
8.1.4
Situation B Which says:
A1 is fouled and is at the free-throw line. Team B refuses to occupy the first marked lane spaces. RULING: A technical foul shall be charged to Team B for unsporting conduct. The lane shall be cleared and A1 shall be given the warranted free throws. Team A's coach will then designated who will shoot the free throws from the technical foul. The technical foul free throws will be shot. The ball will then be administered at the division line to Team A. (10-4-5)
Of course, with Nevada's citation, this is a moot point now, and probably wouldn't apply anyways, since refusal to occupy and unable to occupy are not the same thing. But just to further the discussion, the above case says a team tech is charged for "unsporting conduct." Is this a team tech charged to no one? If it is unsporting, should this not go to the HC for not directing his players to occupy the lane spaces?