Consider a completley different situation, but one that is covered clearly by the rules and cases.

A1 is awarded 2 FTs. A time-out is then granted. After the time-out, the official is ready to administer the FT, but A1 is not in the semi-circle. The official correctly places the ball on the floor inside the semi-circle. At this point, two things are true:

1) The ball is at the disposal of A1
2) A1 cannot go get the ball without violating.

Seems to me your point is not supported by the rules. JMHO.
__________________________________________________ _________

Edit: Jeez, Dan_ref beat me by about 3 minutes. :(

From what I have read and heard arguments from, I'm going to have to go with, that this was a legal play by the officials. All because of the word OR in the rule! It's says in possession OR at the disposal, so I'm going to give the time out, but I do agree I would have to try and get a whistle before the timeout is asked for to get the ball back to the shooter and reset the free throw!

Since RPP isn't in effect in this case, it doesn't matter. Whether the FT can enter the semi circle and get a ball put there WHEN HE WASN'T IN THERE isn't relevant to this situation. So we don't need to discuss RPP, which is a specific procedure with its own quirks. For example, when RPP is not in effect one would call an immediate technical foul on a player for not being in the semi circle. RPP changes the rules.
You should ask:
Can a FT who refuses to accept the ball from the administering official later pick it up without violating after the official places it on the floor at the FT line? The answer is yes, and that's a better parallel to what we have here.

Of course it's relevant. Here's what you said, quoted from page 1 of this thread:

Dan_ref and I just gave you an example that shows that statement to be absolutely false. Whether the resuming procedure is in effect or not, the player cannot go to get the ball and yet the ball is at his disposal.

Whatever other point you'd like to make, I'm willing to listen; but the play I described for you is exactly on point and shows your original statement to be false.

Well of course it's relevant, unless you want to retract this statement:

In both plays the FTer cannot legally get the ball.

This time I beat Dan_ref! :)

FCOL, just blow it dead and give the ball back to the shooter. If he still wants a TO, he'll ask again.

Damn. I knew I shouldn't have wasted time underlining that passage!

I still don't agree that your RRP example is relevant or that it makes my earlier statement false.

Dan asked me, "By what rule is the ball no longer at the disposal in this sitch?"

The logic of my response was that the ball is no longer at the disposal of the FT shooter because he had the ball, but now it is gone. That seems pretty simple.

In your RPP example, the FT shooter was never allowed to have the ball in first place, thus it is impossible to argue that the ball, while still live, will at sometime no longer be at his disposal.

It's just not the same.

Furthermore, neither you nor Dan has responded to my point that the RPP creates special circumstances during a game of basketball during which some of the normal rules are suspended. The example I gave dealt with technical fouls. Therefore, using a RPP situation to argue by analogy is not appropriate. What happens under RPP is quite different.

Okay, how 'bout this?

After A1 bounces the ball of his foot, it rolls straight to A2, who is able to pick it up and throw it back to A1. Legal?

What if B1 picks up the loose ball and holds it for 10 seconds?

Seems so simple that if the rules maker wanted it to work that way they would have written it that way.

But of course they didn't, and now you're making it up as you go along.

In fact, in the associated case play they want us to blow the whistle to prevent a violation. How can we have a violation if the FT has not ended yet the ball is not at the disposal?

So I've heard......

Got any pix?

Gee, nobody picked up on my attempt to trap guys into a discussion of "calling" timeout. :(