[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

4-38: The resumption-of-play procedure is used to prevent delay in putting the ball in play when a throw-in team does not make a thrower available or following a time-out or intermission (unless either team is not on the court to start the second half) as in 7-5-1 and 8-1-2. The procedure results in a violation instead of a technical foul for initial delay in specific situations.

My general question is: Why do interpreters/trainers often stress that the resumption-of-play procedure is used following a timeout or intermission, when in reality it is used in many other situations not necessarily following a timeout or intermission, with two main exceptions, delay by the free thrower, and starting the second half, both of which are immediate technical fouls that do not involve placing the ball on the floor or giving it to the team who is not delaying.

What trainers are you talking about? Are you assuming facts not in evidence?