Delay Throwin Or Free Throw ...

[BillyMac]

Looking for citations, I've searched the NFHS rulebook, the NFHS casebook, Forum Annual Interpretation Archives, and Forum Search and came out with nothing.

Finally, in desperation, I tried a search on the Google and came up with these three Forum posts:

BillyMac October 2008
Resumption Of Play Reminder ...
Just a reminder: A few years ago the Resumption of Play procedure, which used to only be used after time outs and intermissions, was changed so that it can also be used during any throwin.

BillyMac November 2008
Sometimes A Technical Foul ...
Remember, the Resumption of Play procedure is only used for a free throw after a timeout, or intermission. If the free throw is not after a timeout, or intermission, and the team delays, it's a technical foul.
The Resumption of Play procedure can be used for any throwin, not just a throwin after a timeout, or intermission.

Nevadaref November 2008
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. (9-2-12)

What was this "change" I was talking about?

I wish that I had done a better job at posting citations (evidence).

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Thanks for pointing this out, but it won't be recognized unless you respond to your own post with four of the following three items:

1) Off topic pictures and or song lyrics
2) Historical references to different and only tangentially related rules
3) Lengthy articles that repeatedly reiterate the same material over and over again along with as much other material as can be included

I'm not sure these guidelines are written anywhere; I've just gleaned them by following recent posts.

We are getting close.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

We are getting close.

Close to an answer?

Give it your best shot.

Please.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Close to an answer?

Give it your best shot.

Please.

I am going to be honest with you. I do not really know what you are asking. You are referencing all this stuff and not sure what the confusion is. This is kind of the issue many have with you sometimes. You often seem to not have a direct point or a reason why you are asking the specific question.

Why don't you just ask a question and let people answer what they know or can reference instead of posting information and then posting more information and getting the actual question lost in the material? Are you confused of something in the rule or are you asking to validate your position? Your post often are more confusing than some of the questions they ask on rules tests.

Peace

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Close to an answer?

Give it your best shot.

Please.

We are getting close to the process Bob laid out in regard to how certain threads go.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I am going to be honest with you. I do not really know what you are asking. You are referencing all this stuff and not sure what the confusion is. This is kind of the issue many have with you sometimes. You often seem to not have a direct point or a reason why you are asking the specific question.

Why don't you just ask a question and let people answer what they know or can reference instead of posting information and then posting more information and getting the actual question lost in the material? Are you confused of something in the rule or are you asking to validate your position? Your post often are more confusing than some of the questions they ask on rules tests.

Peace

Pretty much my outlook on this thread as well. Not sure what's being asked. Seemed like Billy answered his own question somewhere in the word buffet.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Raymond

We are getting close to the process Bob laid out in regard to how certain threads go.


Pretty much my outlook on this thread as well. Not sure what's being asked. Seemed like Billy answered his own question somewhere in the word buffet.

And the thing is I love having to discuss issues of rules and even mechanics. I do them every day in multiple sports because I love officiating. But I have no idea what the freak he is asking. No idea whatsoever.

Peace

[ilyazhito]

I'll try to translate the question from BillyMac into normal English. He wants to know what the proper procedure is if the free-thrower is guilty of a delay, but the delay does not come offer a timeout or intermission.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I do not really know what you are asking.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

But I have no idea what the freak he is asking. No idea whatsoever.

Originally Posted by Raymond

Not sure what's being asked.

This:

Originally Posted by BillyMac

What rulebook and/or casebook citations tell us how to handle other (not 10.4.5) delay situations during a throwin or a free throw not after a timeout or intermission where we simply place the ball on the floor (disposal), or give it to the team who is not delaying?

Note that in some situations (in all cases not after timeout or intermission) we have a casebook play but no associated rulebook citation (inbounding), while in other situations (first lane space) we have neither a casebook play nor an associated rulebook citation.

[Raymond]

I don't know what this means: "or give it to the team who is not delaying?"

[ilyazhito]

On a free throw, assuming there is no timeout, the ball will be placed at the free thrower's disposal. A is not required to have people in the lane spaces, only B. If B is not in the lane spaces, the free throws will be administered, with a violation against B for not occupying the required spaces if the free throw is missed.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

I don't know what this means: "or give it to the team who is not delaying?"

Good catch Raymond. Thank you.

Giving the ball it to the team who is not delaying usually occurs only after a timeout or intermission. Inbounding team is ready. Team not inbounding is still in their huddle even after the second horn and a strong whistle by the official. Give the ball to the inbounding team for an uncontested layup. For most officials, more of a rulebook written exam question rather than a real game situation. Most officials would use their game management skills (patience, location, voice, whistle) to get the non-inbounding team out onto the court.

That's (after a timeout or intermission) already covered in the resumption-of-play procedure rule.

More likely is putting the ball the floor when the inbounding team doesn't make an inbounder available. That can occur both after after a timeout or intermission, or not after a timeout or intermission. Resumption-of-play procedure covers after a timeout or intermission, casebook play (but no rule) covers not after a timeout or intermission.

[BillyMac]

4-38: 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.

My general question is: Why do my interpreters/trainers often stress that the resumption-of-play procedure is used following a timeout or intermission, when in reality it is used in many other situations not necessarily following a timeout or intermission, with two main exceptions, delay by the free thrower, and starting the second half, both of which are immediate technical fouls that do not involve placing the ball on the floor or giving it to the team who is not delaying.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

4-38: 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.

My general question is: Why do interpreters/trainers often stress that the resumption-of-play procedure is used following a timeout or intermission, when in reality it is used in many other situations not necessarily following a timeout or intermission, with two main exceptions, delay by the free thrower, and starting the second half, both of which are immediate technical fouls that do not involve placing the ball on the floor or giving it to the team who is not delaying.

What trainers are you talking about? Are you assuming facts not in evidence?