Another FT situation

[Mark Dexter]

This comes from a game I had at camp this summer, just now getting around to posting it.

Running clock, team B is down in the 4th quarter by quite a bit, and B's coach already has a technical foul.

B1 fouls A1, and A1 is shooting two shots. No timeout is called, but B's coach has his players come over to the bench to talk. I inform the coach that he has to have two players in the lower blocks before we administer the free throw. He refuses.

*DISCLAIMER* yes - I realize that my partner should NOT have put the ball into play, but he did.

I instantly signaled a delayed violation (as trail), but center realized what happened after the ball had gotten to the shooter, and blew his whistle.

If we catch the mistake, it's a warning (verbal, not recorded) then a technical foul. What, however, happens if you let A1 take the shot? Can we charge the violation as well and give A1 a replacement FT?

And, just FYI, I T'ed the coach because of this, so the whole issue ended up being moot.

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by Mark Dexter
He refuses.

That's enoough for the T right there (by rule).

If your partner put the ball in play after the refusal, I'd stick the coach.

[Joel Poli]

I believe this would be a delay of game T. No "official"warning is need. Shot the foul shoots in the order that they happened. two shoots for the shooting foul, two shots for the T and the ball inbounds by Team A at the division line. I bet the coach will have two players ready next time.

[rainmaker]

I'm having trouble coming up with any rule reference that makes this a technical foul. It's listed specifically in Rule 9, which is Violations, and gives the penalty as the "delayed violation" where the shooter is given a substitute shot if s/he misses. What other references are there?

[FrankHtown]

I believe the only time delaying a free throw is not a technical(delaying the game) is during the "resumption of play" procedure.

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by rainmaker
I'm having trouble coming up with any rule reference that makes this a technical foul. It's listed specifically in Rule 9, which is Violations, and gives the penalty as the "delayed violation" where the shooter is given a substitute shot if s/he misses. What other references are there?

There's a specific case on this in either 9 or 10, Juulie.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by rainmaker
I'm having trouble coming up with any rule reference that makes this a technical foul. It's listed specifically in Rule 9, which is Violations, and gives the penalty as the "delayed violation" where the shooter is given a substitute shot if s/he misses. What other references are there?

If a player refuses, use R10-3-6(a). If it's a coach use R10-1-5(b), or if you want to make sure that a direct T is charged to him, use the generic R10-4-1-- "commit an unsporting act". Refusing a direct request from an official to get the game underway can certainly be construed and interpreted as an unsporting act.

[zebraman]

I'd say, give the T regardless. You could probably get away with the violation, but the coach is now being a horse's patootie and your credibility is being questioned. T his butt up.

Z

[ChrisSportsFan]

in summerball, I'd give the guy his first shot, violation if he misses and now he gets an extra try. Now if coach still doesn't release, T. If he wants to ruin my game, he's gotta pay.

[Mark Dexter]

Well, this being a summer game with a running clock, part of me just wanted to say "Okay coach, we'll wait for you to get your players back over, but we're not shooting free throws until they're there."

If he wants the clock to run while he's losing, fine by me.

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by bob jenkins

There's a specific case on this in either 9 or 10, Juulie.

Found it. It's 10-1-5 Sit. C. Thanks, Bob.

I've got another question. If the girls are over talking to the coach, and not occupying the bottom lane spaces, that's a T. Now do we just call it at that point? How much nagging do we do? If we specifically instruct the coach to get his players to the proper places, and the coach specifically refuses, are there now 2 T's?

[FrankHtown]

I actually had this happen. Team A was up by 20 points, less than a minute on the clock. Team B fouls, in the bonus, Team A shooting 2. We line up team A, team B goes to their bench to talk to coach. I said "Coach, I need two under the basket." He yells back, "The game is over, don't worry about it" I quietly went over and said "Coach, help me out. I can't just disregard the rule, and you don't want your players to be quitters, do you?" He sent them out.

[rainmaker]

I don't understand why this situation couldn't be addressed more clearly in the rule and case books. I doubt they could have made it more difficult to do the right thing if they'd spent a whole weekend trying. If the specific situation of not putting players into the bottom lane spaces requires a technical foul, why not list it specifically in the rule book? It's specifically described in Rule 9 which is Violations, and that makes it sound as though the appropriate penalty would be the delayed violation thing where a substitute shot is awarded. However, it's not referenced specifically in the Penalty to 9-1. And why list it at all in Rule 9 if it should be a technical? Then the case book situation references 4-46. But that specific situation isn't mentioned there. And there is nothing in 4-46 that says that any delay that's not listed is an automatic technical. For anyone who wants to find a positive reference for the correct penalty, it's just very, very confusing.

That's my rant for the day. I think I'll go tilt at some windmills!

[Nevadaref]

Originally posted by rainmaker
I don't understand why this situation couldn't be addressed more clearly in the rule and case books. I doubt they could have made it more difficult to do the right thing if they'd spent a whole weekend trying. If the specific situation of not putting players into the bottom lane spaces requires a technical foul, why not list it specifically in the rule book? It's specifically described in Rule 9 which is Violations, and that makes it sound as though the appropriate penalty would be the delayed violation thing where a substitute shot is awarded. However, it's not referenced specifically in the Penalty to 9-1. And why list it at all in Rule 9 if it should be a technical? Then the case book situation references 4-46. But that specific situation isn't mentioned there. And there is nothing in 4-46 that says that any delay that's not listed is an automatic technical. For anyone who wants to find a positive reference for the correct penalty, it's just very, very confusing.

That's my rant for the day. I think I'll go tilt at some windmills!

Juulie,
I understand your frustration. However, I do see that you found the proper case book play, 10.1.5SitC. It is labeled that way because delaying the game in this manner is a TEAM technical foul under 10-1-5b. "Delay the game by preventing the ball from being made promptly live or from being put in play."
Clearly the defensive team is preventing the ball from being made promptly live because the official cannot put the ball at the disposal of the FT shooter (which would make it live) until the two marked-lane spaces nearest the basket are occupied by defensive players.
That's my explanation of where it is in the rules book.

As for 4-46, that lists the team delay of game warnings. The three items listed therein are the only reasons a warning for delay may be given. If a team delays in some other way, which does not fall under the purview of 4-46, the rules demand that an immediate technical foul be called under 10-1-5b. You should think of 10-1-5b as the general case and 4-46 as the exceptions to it. Basically, give a technical foul unless they are doing one of the three things listed in 4-46, then just give a warning.

Now if you really want frustrating, try to prove to someone using the rules book that the warnings are separate and that a team could actually have three different warnings in the same game without receiving a technical foul. This is what I believe should be clarified in the books.

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by Nevadaref
Juulie,
I understand your frustration. However, I do see that you found the proper case book play, 10.1.5SitC. It is labeled that way because delaying the game in this manner is a TEAM technical foul under 10-1-5b. "Delay the game by preventing the ball from being made promptly live or from being put in play."

Yea, but the case isn't listed under the same numbers as the rule. How could anybody be expected to find it except to stumble upone it by accident?

Clearly the defensive team is preventing the ball from being made promptly live because the official cannot put the ball at the disposal of the FT shooter (which would make it live) until the two marked-lane spaces nearest the basket are occupied by defensive players.
That's my explanation of where it is in the rules book.

It's obvious why it's illegal, and there's no reason why it shouldn't be a technical foul, but then why not list it in the rules under 10-1 instead of 9-1? I understand why the case is under 10, but the the rule should be too.

As for 4-46, that lists the team delay of game warnings. The three items listed therein are the only reasons a warning for delay may be given. If a team delays in some other way, which does not fall under the purview of 4-46, the rules demand that an immediate technical foul be called under 10-1-5b. You should think of 10-1-5b as the general case and 4-46 as the exceptions to it. Basically, give a technical foul unless they are doing one of the three things listed in 4-46, then just give a warning.

I know all that. Why not say it right there where someone might look for it?

Now if you really want frustrating, try to prove to someone using the rules book that the warnings are separate and that a team could actually have three different warnings in the same game without receiving a technical foul. This is what I believe should be clarified in the books.

I agree about this!