New '16/17 Casebook Arrived

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Freddy

..

New 9.12B: On the second of two free-throw attempts by A1, the ball is touched outside the cylinder by A2. RULING: No points can be scored A2's actions are ruled a violation. B will be given the ball for a throw-in on the sideline at the free-throw line extended. (9-1 Penalty 1)

...

So we're going with the NBA mechanic here?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Freddy

Old 9.12B: On the second of two free-throw attempts by A1, the ball is touched outside the cylinder by A2. RULING: The ball became dead immediately when A2 moved into the lane prematurely. Therefore, the goaltending is ignored. The lane violation cancels the free throw and Team B will throw-in from a designated spot outside the end line. (9-1 Penalty 1)

New 9.12B: On the second of two free-throw attempts by A1, the ball is touched outside the cylinder by A2. RULING: No points can be scored A2's actions are ruled a violation. B will be given the ball for a throw-in on the sideline at the free-throw line extended. (9-1 Penalty 1)

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

So we're going with the NBA mechanic here?

This would be a rule change, not a mechanic change. The rules designate the location of the throwin. Mechanics designate which official administers it, how, and where the other officials go.

That said, I don't know why or how they could justify this without a corresponding rule change. Both the ball and the location of the infraction were in the key. The nearest spot is the endline.

Since the ball was dead in this play as soon as the violation occurred, the rest of the case about goaltending is not relevant when discussing how to administer the penalty for the lane violation. Are they now saying that all offensive FT violations should be taken to the sideline? If so, what about other violations by the offense that occur in the lane? Are they moved too? If not, what makes them different?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

This would be a rule change, not a mechanic change. The rules designate the location of the throwin. Mechanics designate which official administers it, how, and where the other officials go.

That said, I don't know why or how they could justify this without a corresponding rule change. Both the ball and the location of the infraction were in the key. The nearest spot is the endline.

Since the ball was dead in this play as soon as the lane violation occurred, the rest of the case about goaltending is not relevant when discussing how to administer the penalty for the lane violation. Are they now saying that all offensive FT violations should be taken to the sideline? If so, what about other violations by the offense that occur in the lane? Are they moved too? If not, what makes them different?

There would not be a lane violation on the play, but yes, your point still stand.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

There would not be a lane violation on the play, but yes, your point still does stand.

You are correct in that it isn't a lane violation....correcting that in my post.

I was apparently distracted by the fact that the old case was referring to a lane violation (incorrectly since entry was allowed on the release).

It seems in correcting that part of the case, they also changed the administration of the penalty as if it occurred outside of the lane for some inexplicable reason.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Are they now saying that all offensive FT violations should be taken to the sideline?

Like we did thirty-five years ago?

Note: Which sideline?

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Like we did thirty-five years ago?

Note: Which sideline?

Without climbing up into the attic, the Ball was taken out-of-bounds on the Sideline at the Free Throw Line Extended when a Dead Ball would go through the Basket immediately following a violation committed by a team in it's Front Court.

MTD, Sr.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Without climbing up into the attic, the ball was taken out-of-bounds on the Sideline at the Free Throw Line Extended when a Dead Ball would go through the Basket immediately following a violation committed by a team in it's Front Court.

MTD, Sr.

I don't even know what that means.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Without climbing up into the attic, the Ball was taken out-of-bounds on the Sideline at the Free Throw Line Extended when a Dead Ball would go through the Basket immediately following a violation committed by a team in it's Front Court.

MTD, Sr.

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

I don't even know what that means.

Two examples:

Play 1: A1 commits a Traveling Violation during a FGA and his attempt goes through the basket.

Play 2: A2 commits a FT Violation during A1's FTA and A1's attempt goes through the basket.

In both Plays, the attempt is canceled because of the Violation. By having the ensuing Throw-in taken on the Sideline rather than the End Line (if that would have been the closet spot to the Violation) indicates that it was a Dead Ball that went through the basket and the score does not count.

MTD, Sr.

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

By having the ensuing Throw-in taken on the Sideline rather than the End Line (if that would have been the closet spot to the Violation) indicates that it was a Dead Ball that went through the basket and the score does not count. MTD, Sr.

Combination to memory vault cracked . . . I now vividly recall this distinction . . . back in the late '70's and early '80's this indeed was the approved mechanic. Helped the table know whether the basket counted or not.
Now, I guess, the difference would be shown by whether the administering official signaled for a designated spot throw in or a "you may run the endline if you wish" throw in.

[Stat-Man]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Two examples:

Play 1: A1 commits a Traveling Violation during a FGA and his attempt goes through the basket.

Play 2: A2 commits a FT Violation during A1's FTA and A1's attempt goes through the basket.

In both Plays, the attempt is canceled because of the Violation. By having the ensuing Throw-in taken on the Sideline rather than the End Line (if that would have been the closet spot to the Violation) indicates that it was a Dead Ball that went through the basket and the score does not count.

MTD, Sr.

MTDSr:

I finally got my rule/casebook set yesterday, so I was eager to go through to review the changes and this discussion item for myself.

Although Play 2 is covered by the revised case 9.12.B, Play 1 is covered by case 7.5.2.A (item a) where the ruling is to award the throw-in at the nearest spot. This implies that if the traveling violation occurs in the so-called "rocket-ship," the throw-in spot would be on the baseline and not the sideline at the FTLE.

Does this mean we only use the sideline FTLE for a final free throw attempt nullified by violation and nothing else?