Occupying Lanre Spaces ??

[vawils]

On a two shot foul, doesn't the defense still have to occupy the first two lane spaces on the first shot? The rule book says the spaces "shall be occupied" and I don't see any distinction for the first shot of a two shot foul. My partner allowed the defensive coach to call his whole team over for a quick huddle on two different occasions. We discussed it after the game and I got out the rule book and we agreed we didn't think they can do that even on a two shot foul. It may not make sense but the rule book says they "shall be occupied". Is this the correct interpretation?? Thanks.

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by vawils
On a two shot foul, doesn't the defense still have to occupy the first two lane spaces on the first shot? The rule book says the spaces "shall be occupied" and I don't see any distinction for the first shot of a two shot foul. My partner allowed the defensive coach to call his whole team over for a quick huddle on two different occasions. We discussed it after the game and I got out the rule book and we agreed we didn't think they can do that even on a two shot foul. It may not make sense but the rule book says they "shall be occupied". Is this the correct interpretation?? Thanks.

If the throws are after a time-out or intermission (quarter break), it's legal under the resuming play procedure. If that first shot is missed, the shooter gets a replacement shot. From then on, the bottom spaces must bne occupied.

If it's not after a time-out or intermission, it's a technical foul for delay of game. No warning required.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by rainmaker

1) If the throws are after a time-out or intermission (quarter break), it's legal under the resuming play procedure. If that first shot is missed, the shooter gets a replacement shot. From then on, the bottom spaces must be occupied.

2) If it's not after a time-out or intermission, it's a technical foul for delay of game. No warning required.

1) Wrong verbiage, Juulie. it's not legal. It's illegal--i.e. a violation for failing to fill the spots. If the first shot is made, you ignore the violation and shoot the second shot. If the first shot is missed, it's a violation and the FT shooter gets a replacement FT. If the defense doesn't fill the lanes before the ball becomes live, then you you nail them with a team "T" for delay. If the first FT was good, then you repeat the procedure for the second FT- violation if the spots still aren't filled, ignore violation if second FT is good, replacement FT if the second FT is no good and the defense still hadn't filled the spots.

2) Nope, it's just a violation- not a "T"- if the FT is missed. It's a "T" if they do it again on the replacement FT. Ignore the violation if the FT was made.

Case book play 9.1.2SitA and rule 9-1-2Penalty.

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Feb 9th, 2005 at 08:53 PM]

[Just Curious]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

2) Nope, it's just a violation- not a "T"- if the FT is missed. It's a "T" if they do it again on the replacement FT. Ignore the violation if the FT was made.

Case book play 9.1.2SitA and rule 9-1-2Penalty.

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Feb 9th, 2005 at 08:53 PM]

Check out case book 10.1.5 Situation C Example b.
As I read it, for a non resuption-of-play sitch, Team B will be directed to take their positions or a "T" will be assessed for delay of game... No violation mentioned here..

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

2) Nope, it's just a violation- not a "T"- if the FT is missed. It's a "T" if they do it again on the replacement FT. Ignore the violation if the FT was made.

Case book play 9.1.2SitA and rule 9-1-2Penalty.

Jurassic --

The first sentence of 9.1.2 Sit A reads, "Following a time-out by Team B, A1 is given the ball for the first of two free throws..." That looks to me like the RPP, not a normal free throw sitch.

You may atone for your inattention to detail by rolling in deer $h!t and chasing ducks.

[Adam]

Originally posted by rainmaker

Jurassic --

The first sentence of 9.1.2 Sit A reads, "Following a time-out by Team B, A1 is given the ball for the first of two free throws..." That looks to me like the RPP, not a normal free throw sitch.

You may atone for your inattention to detail by rolling in deer $h!t and chasing ducks.

ROTFLMAO!!!!!

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by vawils
On a two shot foul, doesn't the defense still have to occupy the first two lane spaces on the first shot? The rule book says the spaces "shall be occupied" and I don't see any distinction for the first shot of a two shot foul. My partner allowed the defensive coach to call his whole team over for a quick huddle on two different occasions. We discussed it after the game and I got out the rule book and we agreed we didn't think they can do that even on a two shot foul. It may not make sense but the rule book says they "shall be occupied". Is this the correct interpretation?? Thanks.

The FED rules have been given above (call the team into the spots, and issue a T if they don't comply).

The NCAA interp (issued in some memo this year) is different -- it's just a violation.

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by Snaqwells

ROTFLMAO!!!!!

I've been on this board for three or four years, and I can count on one hand the ROTFLMAO's I've received. That feels great. But what's even better is catching Jurassic in a mistake. Wednesday was awful for me in a number of ways, but I'd do it all again twice just for that one great thing. Red star on the calendar!

[johnnyrao]

I had a similar situation we discussed a few eeks ago here. We made the coache fill the lane spaces. The consensus from our earlier discussion was to make the coach fill the spaces or call a T for delay. Mine was a boys varsity game so we had one official go to the coach and tell him he must fill the lane spaces. He did and the game went on with no problems.

[SteveM]

"You may atone for your inattention to detail by rolling in deer $h!t and chasing ducks."

Geesh, I'd hate to make her mad...

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by johnnyrao
I had a similar situation we discussed a few eeks ago...

That scary, huh?