Running out of Eligible Players

[crosscountry55]

This is largely hypothetical, but something that dawned on me during a youth game that concluded with a team fielding only three players (they started with five)...and they ended up winning the game.

Suppose they had gotten down to one and the referee still believed they had a chance to win. Per rule, we play on. My question is, what happens to this team when the opponent is shooting FTs. The bottom two lane spaces "shall" be occupied by the defense. Considering this isn't possible with only one eligible player, does that mean every FT automatically carries a delayed violation and, thus, unlimited substitute FTs until all merited FTs are successful?

Sit down, have a drink, and discuss.

[frezer11]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

This is largely hypothetical, but something that dawned on me during a youth game that concluded with a team fielding only three players (they started with five)...and they ended up winning the game.

Suppose they had gotten down to one and the referee still believed they had a chance to win. Per rule, we play on. My question is, what happens to this team when the opponent is shooting FTs. The bottom two lane spaces "shall" be occupied by the defense. Considering this isn't possible with only one eligible player, does that mean every FT automatically carries a delayed violation and, thus, unlimited substitute FTs until all merited FTs are successful?

Sit down, have a drink, and discuss.

Actually, it's worse. 8.1.4 Situation B says its a technical foul...

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by frezer11

Actually, it's worse. 8.1.4 Situation B says its a technical foul...

8.1.4 SITUATION: A1 is at the free-throw line for the first attempt of a bonus situation. In (a), two Team B and two Team A players occupy the first and second marked lane spaces, respectively. B3 occupies one of the third marked lane spaces. A3 attempts to occupy the vacant third marked lane space; or (b) two Team B players occupy the first marked lane spaces. The offense chooses not to occupy any marked lane spaces. Two more Team B players choose to occupy the second marked lane spaces. RULING: Illegal in (a), A3 is not permitted to occupy the third marked lane space. Only two offensive players may occupy marked lane spaces during a free throw. If the improper alignment is not corrected prior to the thrower having the ball at his/her disposal, a free-throw violation shall be called on Team A immediately. Legal in (b), four defensive players are permitted in any of the first three vacant marked lane spaces.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

This is largely hypothetical, but something that dawned on me during a youth game that concluded with a team fielding only three players (they started with five)...and they ended up winning the game.

Suppose they had gotten down to one and the referee still believed they had a chance to win. Per rule, we play on. My question is, what happens to this team when the opponent is shooting FTs. The bottom two lane spaces "shall" be occupied by the defense. Considering this isn't possible with only one eligible player, does that mean every FT automatically carries a delayed violation and, thus, unlimited substitute FTs until all merited FTs are successful?

Sit down, have a drink, and discuss.

We discussed this years ago and sent it in to the federation for a ruling.

2003-04 NFHS BASKETBALL RULES INTERPRETATIONS

Publisher’s Note: The National Federation of State High School Associations is the only source of official high school interpretations. They do not set aside nor modify any rule. They are made and published by the NFHS in response to situations presented. Robert F. Kanaby, Publisher, NFHS Publications © 2003

SITUATION 2: Team A started the game with seven team members in the scorebook. All team members foul out but one, A1. Team A is leading by eight points with 38 seconds left in the game with a chance to win. A1 fouls B2 with Team B in the bonus. A1 occupies one of the first marked lane spaces for the free throw, with no teammate to occupy the other required space. RULING: By rule, a team may continue to play with one player if that team has an opportunity to win the game. Accordingly, since Team A can only put one player in the required free-throw marked lane space, it cannot be penalized. Further, Team B may not occupy the first marked lane space left vacant by Team A. (3-1-1 Note, 8-1-3)

[crosscountry55]

Nice! Way to dig that one out of the attic. Thanks Nevada.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[frezer11]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

8.1.4 SITUATION: A1 is at the free-throw line for the first attempt of a bonus situation. In (a), two Team B and two Team A players occupy the first and second marked lane spaces, respectively. B3 occupies one of the third marked lane spaces. A3 attempts to occupy the vacant third marked lane space; or (b) two Team B players occupy the first marked lane spaces. The offense chooses not to occupy any marked lane spaces. Two more Team B players choose to occupy the second marked lane spaces. RULING: Illegal in (a), A3 is not permitted to occupy the third marked lane space. Only two offensive players may occupy marked lane spaces during a free throw. If the improper alignment is not corrected prior to the thrower having the ball at his/her disposal, a free-throw violation shall be called on Team A immediately. Legal in (b), four defensive players are permitted in any of the first three vacant marked lane spaces.

8.1.4 Situation B Which says:
A1 is fouled and is at the free-throw line. Team B refuses to occupy the first marked lane spaces. RULING: A technical foul shall be charged to Team B for unsporting conduct. The lane shall be cleared and A1 shall be given the warranted free throws. Team A's coach will then designated who will shoot the free throws from the technical foul. The technical foul free throws will be shot. The ball will then be administered at the division line to Team A. (10-4-5)

Of course, with Nevada's citation, this is a moot point now, and probably wouldn't apply anyways, since refusal to occupy and unable to occupy are not the same thing. But just to further the discussion, the above case says a team tech is charged for "unsporting conduct." Is this a team tech charged to no one? If it is unsporting, should this not go to the HC for not directing his players to occupy the lane spaces?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by frezer11

If it is unsporting, should this not go to the HC for not directing his players to occupy the lane spaces?

It *could* -- if there was a rule change.