Resumption Of Play Procedure .,..
 

The resumption of play procedure is to be used instead of technical fouls after timeouts, or intermissions. After time out, throwin team delays, put the ball on the floor, and continue the procedure from there. After time out, free throw shooter delays outside the semicircle, put the ball on the floor, and continue the procedure from there.

Not after timeout, free throw shooter delays outside the semicircle, charge an immediate technical foul (don't put the ball on the floor).

I've found citations for all of the above, but I've having problems finding citations for below.

Not after timeout, throwin team delays. I would do the same as the resumption of play procedure, put the ball on the floor, and continue the procedure from there. I wouldn't charge an immediate technical foul here.

Is this correct? Citation please.

NFHS: “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.”

You can always use ROP in a throw-in situation even if it's not after a timeout or intermission. Conversely, you cannot use ROP for free throws unless after a timeout or intermission.

The NCAAM rule is different.

Or ...
 

Missed the important word "or" in the rule (it's easier to spot when you capitalize it and boldface it). Thanks.

I wonder why the NFHS wants us to go to an immediate technical foul not after a time out on a free throw, rather than going to the resumption of play procedure and putting the ball on the floor at the free throw line?

9.2.9 is also a reference for putting the ball on the floor for the throw-in

Maybe because you can give the benefit of the doubt to a team not knowing the timeout had ended. But if they're on the court (there was no TO), then there's no reason for them to delay.

Much Thanks ...
 

Thanks.

Reasonable explanation. Thanks.

Wouldn't the same be true in the throw-in situation? So, why are throw-ins and FTs treated differently?

Yeah. *shrugs*

Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk

Who ???
 

Not sure. Anybody can make a throwin; with rare exceptions, only one can attempt a free throw. But isn't that logic "backwards"?

NFHS: "Shut up and do what I tell you!"

Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk

On The Floor (Used Correctly) ...
 

9.2.9 SITUATION: Following a violation, the official has properly signaled and
awarded a throw-in to Team A at a designated spot. No Team A player comes to
the spot even though the official has allowed ample time for them to respond. The
official then places the ball on the floor and begins the five-second count. (a) Both
A1 and A2 step out of bounds and A1 picks up the ball; or (b) both A1 and A2
step out of bounds and A1 picks up the ball and hands it to A2. RULING: In (a),
A2 must immediately return inbounds. In (b), it is a throw-in violation when A1
hands the ball to A2.