Huddling Prior to a Free Throw

[Kansas Ref]

All of this huddling up prior to a FT [and after a FT] is largely driven by what players see on TV games. I recall this activity first became "fashionable" to do by Duke teams of the 1990's (or maybe other less renown teams were doing it and it only became apparent since Duke is on TV so much). At any rate, your rules knowledge is accurate in this area--as you've stated in your post: event #1 = warning for DOG, event#2 = cup of T.

Regarding contact on the FT'er (A1): most coaches hold that the FT'er is in a vulnerable position while in the follow-thru part of a FT try--the risk of injury is great when the arms are extended upward and you have (B1) forcefully bumping into the groin of A1 in a box out attempt. A1 has no means of protecting self --so we call a common foul if such contact occurs prior to ball hitting the ring.

[SC Official]

Don't go looking for trouble.

"Line it up (guys/players)" is all that is needed 99% of the time.

[deecee]

Unless they are really causing delay don't look for trouble. Remind them to keep moving, break up, etc. But unless egregious this is not a T that you want to give, especially the higher you move up.

[Refhoop]

I have never gone looking for this, but it was an intra-squad scrimmage where the assistants were coaching and the head coach is in the background watching. I happen to be watching the officials work - near court side.
Free throw administering official said: break it up guys, which is what prompted the assistant coach to ask: "why can't they huddle?" Trail says to assistant: I'm about 90% sure they can't, but I'll check the rule for you... pretty lightheartedly. The head coach (in the background) blurts out: "well we're going to huddle anyway!". To which I thought; ok tough guy - Now I'll go look up the rule.
Generally, I agree with all of you; no problem... provided it doesn't become a competition for who can occupy the lane first for the huddle. Then two whistle blast and a strong "line em up!" should do it.
Just wanted some veteran input!

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Kansas Ref

...

Regarding contact on the FT'er (A1): most coaches hold that the FT'er is in a vulnerable position while in the follow-thru part of a FT try--the risk of injury is great when the arms are extended upward and you have (B1) forcefully bumping into the groin of A1 in a box out attempt. A1 has no means of protecting self --so we call a common foul if such contact occurs prior to ball hitting the ring.

Not contact by the defense, contact by teammates as in 10-1-5, and as you described in the first part of your response.

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Not contact by the defense, contact by teammates as in 10-1-5, and as you described in the first part of your response.

I believe there is a case play (or at least there used to be) in which the FTer was talking to the coach at the sideline when the administering official was ready to put the ball at the FTer's disposal. I believe that's another example of "contact with the FTer," and one in which no warning for delay is initially given. But truth be told, I've never fully understood what "contact with the FTer" means, either. It is not very well explained.

Having said all of that, I agree with many other posters that this delay and/or technical should be avoided if at all possible. Preventative officiating. Don't complicate things or stir the pot. If it's absurd and you ask them twice and they're blowing you off, then ok. But in 7+ years I've never seen that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

I believe there is a case play (or at least there used to be) in which the FTer was talking to the coach at the sideline when the administering official was ready to put the ball at the FTer's disposal. I believe that's another example of "contact with the FTer," and one in which no warning for delay is initially given.

The OP is about 10-1-5(d) (Team Tech).

Your situation is about 10-3-5(c) (Player Tech).

Not the same.

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

The OP is about 10-1-5(d) (Team Tech).



Your situation is about 10-3-5(c) (Player Tech).



Not the same.

You're right. Good catch, thanks.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Kansas Ref

I recall this activity first became "fashionable" to do by Duke teams of the 1990's.

North Carolina. Dean Smith.