The Official Forum - New interpretation

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)

- Basketball (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/)

- - New interpretation (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/17753-new-interpretation.html)

Quote:

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Quote:

Originally posted by johnnyrao
[

I should know better than to question you but some of our officials who took the state certification test this year said this was a question on the test and the test answer was no the violation does not carry over. The interpretation they were given was that when you grant the TO you make the ball dead. According to the rules the free throw ends on a dead ball. The TO call ended the free throw so after the TO the free throw is a completely new one the violation can not carry over.
[/B]

You're kiddin', right?

If the FT <b>ends</b> with a TO, then how can you administer another one after the TO? You can't because that FT has ended, according to your guys. Iow, A1 is given the ball to shoot a FT- say the first shot of a 1/1. He calls a time-out and he now loses that FT because it ended. Other team has to get the ball now. That's a ludicrous interpretation. It's a complete mis-reading of Rule 4-20-3.
[/B][/QUOTE]

JR:

Thank you.

MTD, Sr.

Quote:

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Quote:

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Quote:

Originally posted by johnnyrao
[

I should know better than to question you but some of our officials who took the state certification test this year said this was a question on the test and the test answer was no the violation does not carry over. The interpretation they were given was that when you grant the TO you make the ball dead. According to the rules the free throw ends on a dead ball. The TO call ended the free throw so after the TO the free throw is a completely new one the violation can not carry over.

You're kiddin', right?

If the FT <b>ends</b> with a TO, then how can you administer another one after the TO? You can't because that FT has ended, according to your guys. Iow, A1 is given the ball to shoot a FT- say the first shot of a 1/1. He calls a time-out and he now loses that FT because it ended. Other team has to get the ball now. That's a ludicrous interpretation. It's a complete mis-reading of Rule 4-20-3.
[/B]

JR:

Thank you.

MTD, Sr. [/B][/QUOTE]MTD SR.

You're welcome. :D

JR

Quote:

Originally posted by NCAAREF
What happens if the player that violated is subbed for during the TO?

It makes no difference whatsoever. It's still a violation.

Quote:

Originally posted by keithb
That question was on our exam last year.

Like quite a few of the questions, it's something you're likely (I said likely) not going to see. Have you ever as a ref ruled a free throw violation because the free throw shooter took more than the alloted 10 seconds?

Yes, I had it last year, my first.

Coach yelled, "I told ya somebody was gonna call it on you!!" :)

Quote:

Originally posted by BktBallRef

Quote:

Originally posted by keithb
That question was on our exam last year.

Like quite a few of the questions, it's something you're likely (I said likely) not going to see. Have you ever as a ref ruled a free throw violation because the free throw shooter took more than the alloted 10 seconds?

Yes, I had it last year, my first.

Coach yelled, "I told ya somebody was gonna call it on you!!" :)

How long was it? I mean, how long did you stand there thinking, "This can't really be happening..."?

Well, during the first FT, I wasn't really counting and I thought, "Man, this is taking a long time." So on the next throw, I wised up. When I got to 11, he still hadn't raised his arms. TWEET!

Had a similiar sitch this past Tuesday. I was L. After he shot, I looked at the C. "Nine." :)

Does anyone have the actual caseplay number on this one. I looked in the casebook last night before my game but couldn't find where it discussed this.

thanks

MC