1 v 5??

[Texref]

https://www.outkick.com/arkansas-hs-...box=1609269438

Thoughts? Was this handled correctly? I say yes! Great job by the crew and awesome effort by the kid!

[JRutledge]

Not much to think about. This was a 2 point game with a few seconds left overall. He got the rebound and got a shot off which if goes they win. They had a chance to win for sure. They certainly did not make it tough on him to get that shot. The rules say you continue when you have a chance to win even if you have one player left and they had a chance to win.

Peace

[crosscountry55]

Yup. If the R believes the team still has a chance to win (which it did), play on!

To the article writer’s question, if the FT had been good (we’re assuming it would have been the last one), the lone player would have had to try to hit an opponent with the throw-in pass and then retrieve the ball. A good opposing coach would have just told his/her team to get far away from such a throw-in.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[rwodar]

One thing that I wonder about: should there be an exception somewhere in the rules that states the first two marked lane spaces do not both need to be occupied if the team only has one player remaining? Based on literal rule verbiage, this should be a violation on the free throw without that exception.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by rwodar

One thing that I wonder about: should there be an exception somewhere in the rules that states the first two parked lane spaces do not both need to be occupied if the team only has one player remaining? Based on literal rule verbiage, this should be a violation on the free throw without that exception.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I want to say that was in an interp or some IAABO sportorial a few years ago, stating that in this specific scenario, this is not a violation? I can’t recall for certain...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by rwodar

One thing that I wonder about: should there be an exception somewhere in the rules that states the first two marked lane spaces do not both need to be occupied if the team only has one player remaining? Based on literal rule verbiage, this should be a violation on the free throw without that exception.

The violation would be for delaying, I do not think one person being in that sport is delaying anything. They cannot be in two places at once. But again if this ever happens to us then we might have to worry about that. Never seen anything in my game come close. I do remember Alabama almost won a game like this but they had either 2 or 3 players left.

Peace

[Camron Rust]

Yes, there should probably be some verbiage to account for the case of getting down to one player. That said, when you get down to just one player, only one player is required to be in the space. It is a rare case that should be handled with the spirit of the rule even if it isn't spelled out.


The penalty for violating the rule requiring two players from the defense to be in the lower spaces isn't a delay violation, it is a technical foul before you even take the shots. When you're down to one player, team B can't refuse to be in the space if they don't have a player to occupy it.



I have had it happen once in my career and nearly happen a second time (in 2019).

In the first, the team with 1 had only started with 6 players. They were playing very aggressively and had a comfortable lead as they started losing players (foul outs and injury). The other team started eating into the lead a little and the team got down to 1 player with under a minute to go and held on to win.

In the second, a Boys Varsity team that had traveled form out of state had over a dozen team members on the bench but over half of them were in street clothes. They played the night before. We assumed they must have been suspended for some reason. Only 6 were dressed and they were not the starters from the previous game. They had a couple of foul outs and a couple of injuries. They only got down to two players. One of the injured came back later to get back to 3 players. Even before they got short handed, they were getting their butts kicked. After the game, in the locker room, I overheard the coach talking to the team about choices and consequences as we walked out. (They were all incredibly respectful to us as we passed by).

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by rwodar

One thing that I wonder about: should there be an exception somewhere in the rules that states the first two marked lane spaces do not both need to be occupied if the team only has one player remaining? Based on literal rule verbiage, this should be a violation on the free throw without that exception.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yep, and it already exists. The NFHS issued an interpretation for this several years ago after I posted that question on this forum and someone forwarded it to the NFHS committee. You will find this in our past Interps archive.


2003-2004 NFHS Basketball Interpretations

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)

Now should a phrase be added to the current rules book acknowledging such exemptions for a team playing with only one player? Probably, since this is now a 17 year-old interp and only a few officials are going to be aware of it.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

2003-2004 NFHS Basketball Interpretations
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)

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

The penalty for violating the rule requiring two players from the defense to be in the lower spaces isn't a delay violation, it is a technical foul before you even take the shots.

Not fully disagreeing, but this seems a little "fishy".

While there are team technical fouls and player technical fouls for delaying the game by preventing the ball from being made promptly live or from being put in play, this seems to be killing an ant with a nuclear warhead.

Wouldn't a delayed violation (also in the rulebook) suffice?

When an offensive player fills the first marked lane space we've been instructed to call an immediate (ball at free throw shooter's disposal), not delayed, double violation (on the offensive player for being there and on the defensive player for not being there), however I can't seem to find a citation or interpretation for this specific situation.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Not fully disagreeing, but this seems a little "fishy".

While there are team technical fouls and player technical fouls for delaying the game by preventing the ball from being made promptly live or from being put in play, this seems to be killing an ant with a nuclear warhead.

Wouldn't a delayed violation (also in the rulebook) suffice?

When an offensive player fills the first marked lane space we've been instructed to call an immediate (ball at free throw shooter's disposal), not delayed, double violation (on the offensive player for being there and on the defensive player for not being there), however I can't seem to find a citation or interpretation for this specific situation.

See 8.4.1b

The reason for this case is that, prior to administering the FT, we are supposed to direct the defensive team to take those spots. By them refusing, it is effectively defined and as an unsportsmanlike act for not following the directives of the officials, perhaps as a show of protest over the preceding call??

If there are players there in the wrong spots and the official doesn't notice (or they switch after the FT begins), that is only a violation (or double violation) because it wasn't a refusal to take the spots.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

... prior to administering the FT, we are supposed to direct the defensive team to take those spots. By them refusing, it is effectively defined and as an unsportsmanlike act for not following the directives of the officials ...

Similar to this?

10-4-5-C: A player must not: Delay the game by acts such as: The free thrower fails to be in the free-throw semicircle when the official is ready to administer the free throw unless the resumption-of-play procedure is in effect following a time-out or intermission. PENALTY: (Section 4) Two free throws plus the ball for a division-line throw-in.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

The penalty for violating the rule requiring two players from the defense to be in the lower spaces isn't a delay violation, it is a technical foul before you even take the shots.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Not fully disagreeing, but this seems a little "fishy". While there are team technical fouls and player technical fouls for delaying the game by preventing the ball from being made promptly live or from being put in play, this seems to be killing an ant with a nuclear warhead. Wouldn't a delayed violation (also in the rulebook) suffice?

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

See 8.4.1b

2018-19 CasebookRevisions 8.1.4b SITUATION B: 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 designate who will shoot the free throws for 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)

Just found this. Nice citation Camron Rust.

[The_Rookie]

What happens on a throw in if a teams has only one player left?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by The_Rookie

What happens on a throw in if a teams has only one player left?

Already answered.

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

... the lone player would have had to try to hit an opponent with the throw-in pass and then retrieve the ball. A good opposing coach would have just told his/her team to get far away from such a throw-in.