Interesting Scenario

[Nu1]

Okay, Jurassic. I hear you. And maybe I'm just tired tonight...
But if it is not applicable then why does the case book cite that specific section and advise to issue a Technical?
Isn't the ball also live in the case book scenario following the timeout?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Nu1

Okay, Jurassic. I hear you. And maybe I'm just tired tonight...
But if it is not applicable then why does the case book cite that specific section and advise to issue a Technical?
Isn't the ball also live in the case book scenario following the timeout?

Nope, the ball isn't live when the "T" is issued in 9.1.2SitA. The "T" in that case play is issued if the defensive team delays the free throw administration by ignoring their first warning. They then get the "T" as soon as they again refuse to line up on the lanes before the FT shooter gets the ball for the substitute free throw. The ball never does become live on the substitute free throw before the "T" is issued in this case play.

In the other play with repeated lane-line violations, those violations occur after the ball becomes live. Iow, apples and oranges.... and different rules.

Make a little more sense now?

[Nu1]

Okay, I tried to respond once, but I got knocked off. Hopefully, if more than one post shows up, they both seem to say the same thing.

Yes, Jurassic, I understand your point. Thanks for the help. What I'm wondering is, why not treat the posted scenario like the case book scenario that followed the timeout?

Let the shooter shoot one extra free throw then tell the violating team to line up. If they don't...while you still have the ball...issue the T for the actionless contest stuff and preventing the ball from becoming live. The same cite used by the case book.

The only difference is the case book scenario is after a timeout and the posted senario is after a foul. I'd vote to change a rule somewhere if it means consistent penalties for the same infraction. One action after a timeout should have the same penalty if it's the same action...but it's after a foul.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Nu1

Yes, Jurassic, I understand your point. Thanks for the help. What I'm wondering is, why not treat the posted scenario like the case book scenario that followed the timeout?

Let the shooter shoot one extra free throw then tell the violating team to line up. If they don't...while you still have the ball...issue the T for the actionless contest stuff and preventing the ball from becoming live. The same cite used by the case book.

The only difference is the case book scenario is after a timeout and the posted senario is after a foul. I'd vote to change a rule somewhere if it means consistent penalties for the same infraction. One action after a timeout should have the same penalty if it's the same action...but it's after a foul.

The violating team is lining up though. Every time. They are not committing the lane line violations until the live ball has left the shooter's hands on the free throw. That's the difference between what we're discussing and the case play, and it's a major difference-- live ball violation vs. dead ball violation.

[Nu1]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

The violating team is lining up though. Every time. They are not committing the lane line violations until the live ball has left the shooter's hands on the free throw. That's the difference between what we're discussing and the case play, and it's a major difference-- live ball violation vs. dead ball violation.

Sorry it took so long to get back, but life had me busy! Just wanted to say...
Okay, I get it now! Thanks for the patience and clarification, Jurassic. If I was leaning towards a T before...I'm now leaning towards no T, not being able to see a rule that applies.