Resumption of play

[Mendy Trent]

I don't get it. What is so different about resumption of play? So following a time-out or intermission, if a team isn't ready you put the ball down and start counting. If they aren't there after 5 seconds, you call a violation. Then you do the same for the other team. After that, it's a T.

So isn't that would you would do in a situation that WASN'T after a T.O. or intermission? What makes resumption of play special?

[Rick Durkee]

Originally Posted by Mendy Trent

I don't get it. What is so different about resumption of play? So following a time-out or intermission, if a team isn't ready you put the ball down and start counting. If they aren't there after 5 seconds, you call a violation. Then you do the same for the other team. After that, it's a T.

So isn't that would you would do in a situation that WASN'T after a T.O. or intermission? What makes resumption of play special?

I think the difference is the escalation of the penalty to technical foul. In instances other then after timeouts and intermissions, there is no provision for an automatic technical foul for failing to be ready to put the ball in play on the second failure to be ready.

I suppose I can imagine assessing a team technical foul as in 10-5-b if it occurs often or is obviously intentional.

[BktBallRef]

Also, there's a much greater difference with regard to a FT. Resumption of play allows you to avoid calling the technical foul immediately

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by Rick Durkee

Insert cool signature line here!

Hey, who gave you permission to use my signature line??

Inthe case of a throw-in, the difference between "putting the ball down" in resuming play situations and non-resuming-play situations is that when you are resuming play, the timing is more prescribed and less open to judgment. After a time-out, there's no reason for further delay, and you can more quickly put the ball down. During a normal dead ball period, you might get there eventually, but you are more flexible in allowing some jockying and being oblivious on the part of the players. The procedure itself looks the same once you get it going. Except in resuming play with a free throw.

[Kevzebra]

After half time, (this is NCAA Womens stuff here) if the team is not on the floor, you are to start the time out timer (set to one minute) and then assess a delay (indirect) technical. If there are on the floor, I would say putting the ball down after clearly identifying who needs to inbound it will do!

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Kevzebra

After half time, (this is NCAA Womens stuff here) if the team is not on the floor, you are to start the time out timer (set to one minute) and then assess a delay (indirect) technical. If there are on the floor, I would say putting the ball down after clearly identifying who needs to inbound it will do!

The same is (generally) true in FED -- if the team isn't on the floor and delays the game, it's a T. IF they are on the floor, use the resumption of play procedure.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Mendy Trent

I don't get it. What is so different about resumption of play? So following a time-out or intermission, if a team isn't ready you put the ball down and start counting. If they aren't there after 5 seconds, you call a violation. Then you do the same for the other team. After that, it's a T.

So isn't that would you would do in a situation that WASN'T after a T.O. or intermission? What makes resumption of play special?

Case 10.4.1c provides one difference