Casebook 10.2.1(b)
 

SITUATION: The ruling official has reported the foul and proceeds to his/her proper position for the first of two free throws awarded to A1...: (b) Two B players are not occupying the first two marked spaces next to the end line as required.
RULING: Team B will be directed to occupy the required spaces. If there is a delay, a team technical foul shall be charged to Team B. (4-47)

Why did the NFHS chose to append (4-47) as a rule reference here? This situation. . . A. Isn't mentioned as one of the 4-47 delays of game, and B. All the infractions detailed in 4-47 merit a warning prior to the issuance of a team technical, which the casebook reference above does not.

In spite of these apparent inconsistencies, is it correct that an immediate T should be issued if the team doesn't put players in those lower lane spaces?

They referenced the rule so officials did NOT try to treat it as one of the warnings. (I think at one time they also had this under the ROP rule, or referenced it -- for the same reason.)

Direct the team in, and issue a T if they refuse to comply.

No Official Warning For Delay ...
 

Could this situation be thought to be similar to where (not after a timeout or an intermission) the shooter isn't in the semicircle, and is directed to occupy the semicircle. If there is further delay, a technical foul is charged to the shooter?

The similarity being no official warning for delay.

10.4.5 SITUATION: The ruling official has reported the foul and has given directions to players along the lane. The official is ready to put the ball at free thrower A1’s disposal, but A1 is at the sideline talking to the coach. RULING: A technical foul for delay is charged to A1. No warning is authorized in this situation. (10-3-5c)

Seems so. Parallel enough to be remembered together. Thanx for heads-up on this one, BM.