Delay situation

ChuckElias · #1 (**permalink**) Wed Oct 13, 2004, 09:03pm

This was on an old NFHS test that I was going over for review.

Following a time-out, A1 is in the semi-circle and ready to attempt his FT. But when the official is ready to administer the FT, A2 and A3 are still huddling in the lane. The official issues a team warning for delay. Is the official correct? Answer: NO.

No? Is it "no" b/c it's immediately following a TO? Is there some aspect of the Resuming Play Procedure that comes into play?

So then what should the official do? Place the ball in the semi-circle and then immediately call a lane violation on A2? Issue a technical foul? Those seem like the only two options to me, aside from the warning. The first seems kind of silly and the latter seems excessive.

I know what we'd all do in real life (shoo them out of the lane and into their lane spaces), but what's the rulebook answer for this question?

Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. · #2 (**permalink**) Wed Oct 13, 2004, 09:44pm

Quote:

Originally posted by ChuckElias
This was on an old NFHS test that I was going over for review.

Following a time-out, A1 is in the semi-circle and ready to attempt his FT. But when the official is ready to administer the FT, A2 and A3 are still huddling in the lane. The official issues a team warning for delay. Is the official correct? Answer: NO.

No? Is it "no" b/c it's immediately following a TO? Is there some aspect of the Resuming Play Procedure that comes into play?

So then what should the official do? Place the ball in the semi-circle and then immediately call a lane violation on A2? Issue a technical foul? Those seem like the only two options to me, aside from the warning. The first seems kind of silly and the latter seems excessive.

I know what we'd all do in real life (shoo them out of the lane and into their lane spaces), but what's the rulebook answer for this question?

The key to this play is the game is being resumed after a timeout, therefore, the resuming play rule applies. I know that this can be aggravating situation because the players are right in the middle lane.

One of the things that we are taught as officials is to not create violations when possible, but the resuming play rule requires us to do just that. The play that you are describing is different to say the least. Usually we have a situation where one or both of the lower spots on the lane are not occupied. The rule requires us to put the ball in play; if A1 makes his free throw ignore the violation, if A1 misses his free throw penalize the violation.

The problem in the play you describe is that unlike B1 or B2 not occupying a required lane space, which still allows the ball to be into play without having players in the way of the official's pass to the free throw shooter. But in this play, how does the offical get the ball to A1 with an easy bounce pass when A2 and A3 are directly between A1 and A3.

I have been watching the debate and my post is just an overview of what I see as a problem with the play. I will have to look at it in depth tomorrow.

Night all.

MTD, Sr.

rainmaker · #3 (**permalink**) Wed Oct 13, 2004, 11:51pm

Quote:

Originally posted by ChuckElias
This was on an old NFHS test that I was going over for review.

Following a time-out, A1 is in the semi-circle and ready to attempt his FT. But when the official is ready to administer the FT, A2 and A3 are still huddling in the lane. The official issues a team warning for delay. Is the official correct? Answer: NO.

No? Is it "no" b/c it's immediately following a TO? Is there some aspect of the Resuming Play Procedure that comes into play?

So then what should the official do? Place the ball in the semi-circle and then immediately call a lane violation on A2? Issue a technical foul? Those seem like the only two options to me, aside from the warning. The first seems kind of silly and the latter seems excessive.

I know what we'd all do in real life (shoo them out of the lane and into their lane spaces), but what's the rulebook answer for this question?

I'm in the middle of writing a series on warnings, delays and the RPP. It's unbelievably complicated and difficult to get straight. It appears to me as though the answer is no because someone didn't think the whole thing through. "It says in the book that a delay of game warning isn't appropriate after a time out so you cant do that. " The RPP doesn't address this situation in any way. There's no way to use the RPP to solve this problem. So I'm thinking a DGW would be appropriate. But then, I don't write the tests!

How old is the test, btw? Perhaps something has changed since then?

Jimgolf · #4 (**permalink**) Thu Oct 14, 2004, 08:32am

Any idiots that have to huddle after a time out should be given a seat on the bench. And realistically, you're going to say "C'mon fellas, break it up". But, 8-1-2 specifically applies here. Throw the ball toward the shooter, call the lane violation.

ChuckElias · #5 (**permalink**) Thu Oct 14, 2004, 08:34am

I don't know how old the test is. Our new recruits get old tests as practice and this was on one of them. I don't know what year it was from.

Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. · #6 (**permalink**) Thu Oct 14, 2004, 11:09am

Quote:

Originally posted by Jimgolf
Any idiots that have to huddle after a time out should be given a seat on the bench. And realistically, you're going to say "C'mon fellas, break it up". But, 8-1-2 specifically applies here. Throw the ball toward the shooter, call the lane violation.

I have to agree with you concerning the idiot description.

MTD, Sr.

rainmaker · #7 (**permalink**) Thu Oct 14, 2004, 11:46am

Quote:

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Quote:

Originally posted by Jimgolf
Any idiots that have to huddle after a time out should be given a seat on the bench. And realistically, you're going to say "C'mon fellas, break it up". But, 8-1-2 specifically applies here. Throw the ball toward the shooter, call the lane violation.

I have to agree with you concerning the idiot description.

MTD, Sr.

I agree about the idiot thing, too.

I've gotta assume both teams are on the floor, so I can't see the Resuming Play Procedure applying. In the situation, I'd go with the delay of game warning, in spite of the test question. I can't see any other reasonable alternative.

mdray · #8 (**permalink**) Thu Oct 14, 2004, 06:00pm

Chuck - I found this question on the 2000 refresher exam (I had answered "yes") The answer key and reference sheet cites rule 4, section 37 which says: if we're using the RPP, "the procedure results in a violation instead of a technical foul for initial delay in specific situations."
So, this makes it about as clear as mud. I guess a DOG warning is not an option after a timeout? Calling a violation is the only recourse according to the book? (I know I'm just talking the players into their lane spots and administering the FT)

Nevadaref · #9 (**permalink**) Wed Oct 20, 2004, 03:20am

Quote:

Originally posted by ChuckElias
Following a time-out, A1 is in the semi-circle and ready to attempt his FT. But when the official is ready to administer the FT, A2 and A3 are still huddling in the lane. The official issues a team warning for delay. Is the official correct? Answer: NO.

Chuck,
Could you please check the question again? I'm surprised that no one else has pointed this out yet, but A1, A2, and A3 are all teammates. So if A1 is shooting FTs and A2 and A3 are in the lane, it is an immediate violation when you throw the ball to the shooter.
If you meant B2 and B3 are in the lane, then the RPP should be used and a delayed violation is the proper call, since this is following a time-out.