Free Throw

[Zoochy]

The case book play references rule 9-1-3a and e.
9-3-1a says the thrower has to release the throw within 10 seconds. 9-1-3e say thrower can not break the plane with their feet.
I do not believe either of these rules have been violated yet. Unless loosing control of the ball constitutes as a throw.
Couldn't team A request time out to prevent a violation from occurring?

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by Zoochy

The case book play references rule 9-1-3a and e.
9-3-1a says the thrower has to release the throw within 10 seconds. 9-1-3e say thrower can not break the plane with their feet.
I do not believe either of these rules have been violated yet. Unless loosing control of the ball constitutes as a throw.
Couldn't team A request time out to prevent a violation from occurring?

The case play itself is authoritative. They have been approved and published etc. These statements are in the beginning of book. You can consider it a throw that did not hit rim etc. when it hits floor it is over.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Zoochy

The case book play references rule 9-1-3a and e.
9-3-1a says the thrower has to release the throw within 10 seconds. 9-1-3e say thrower can not break the plane with their feet.
I do not believe either of these rules have been violated yet. Unless loosing control of the ball constitutes as a throw.
Couldn't team A request time out to prevent a violation from occurring?

The instruction in the case book play is for the official to sound the whistle after A1 loses the ball in order to prevent any violations by those in marked lane spaces. The thrower lost his opportunity at the FT by failing to keep control of the ball. That is the approved ruling and how it should be called.
The team cannot request a TO as no player is in control nor is the ball at their disposal.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

The team cannot request a TO as no player is in control nor is the ball at their disposal.

An interesting interpretation of at their disposal.
This would apply to a thrower on a throw-in who lost control and the ball bounced out of the 3 foot spot, would it not?

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by Adam

An interesting interpretation of at their disposal.
This would apply to a thrower on a throw-in who lost control and the ball bounced out of the 3 foot spot, would it not?

Is interesting. On the FT, when the ball hits the lane, the try/opportunity is over. The throw in case play has Thrower in losing the ball and then leaving the spot to retrieve it. Ruling is violation because he left designated spot---as opposed to failing to throw ball directly into court. i believe it probably should have said that also.

[Dad]

Originally Posted by BigCat

Is interesting. On the FT, when the ball hits the lane, the try/opportunity is over. The throw in case play has Thrower in losing the ball and then leaving the spot to retrieve it. Ruling is violation because he left designated spot---as opposed to failing to throw ball directly into court. i believe it probably should have said that also.

False. Have you ever called a violation for a player dribbling in the lane? If the player loses control and gets the ball before it's too far to get it without stepping into the lane then it's fine.

In other words, I think Zoochy could have a decent point if the coach notices the player MAY lose the ball and it'll go to far away. So he's yelling for a timeout he notices the loss of control starting.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by Dad

False. Have you ever called a violation for a player dribbling in the lane? If the player loses control and gets the ball before it's too far to get it without stepping into the lane then it's fine.

In other words, I think Zoochy could have a decent point if the coach notices the player MAY lose the ball and it'll go to far away. So he's yelling for a timeout he notices the loss of control starting.

I could have said it better, but I'm talking about losing the ball in the lane. if you can get it back you havnt lost it. the play is losing it. And Zoochy's question was once the ball is lost in the lane, why can't shooters team call timeout to avoid violation. If he hasn't lost the ball his team can always call timeout.

[Dad]

Originally Posted by BigCat

I could have said it better, but I'm talking about losing the ball in the lane. if you can get it back you havnt lost it. the play is losing it. And Zoochy's question was once the ball is lost in the lane, why can't shooters team call timeout to avoid violation. If he hasn't lost the ball his team can always call timeout.

I knew what you probably meant.

Ahh. Because coaches can't time travel. Violation already happened. Are you letting A1's coach call a TO when A1 steps out of bounds but before the official blows his whistle for it? If A's coach wants a TO he can have it but the ball is Bs.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Zoochy

The case book play references rule 9-1-3a and e.
9-3-1a says the thrower has to release the throw within 10 seconds. 9-1-3e say thrower can not break the plane with their feet.
I do not believe either of these rules have been violated yet. Unless loosing control of the ball constitutes as a throw.
Couldn't team A request time out to prevent a violation from occurring?

Before the case was in the book, we had several discussions here about how to call it -- with all (?) of the options being discussed.

FED issued the case play -- now it's clear.