Jurassic, thanks for the help. However, 8.1.2 Comment still has that phrase, ...unless the resuming-of-play procedure..is in effect. I really haven't gotten a rock-solid answer to my problem, lots of support but no rulebook support. I would hope as experienced officials with a tough rule question or interpretation, just having our colleagues vote, or say "yea, you got it right" will not be enough. I am not going to a coach and say "well, my pals on officialforum.com said so".

I did finally find a case on this situation that did support the way I handled it, and everybody was right. I was just disappointed that no better rule references were given, I was about to assume there weren't any that specifically covered this. Alas, 9.1.2 covers the exact situation. Thanks everybody.

First let me say that devdog69 in the original post used the resuming play procedure correctly. 9-1-2 seems to back you up. Nice Job by the way! That happens so rarely, it's got to feel good to get that one right.

As far as the other post (Schmidt) - that's a totally different question and the resumption of play procedure is NOT in effect, but bob jenkins, please give me a rule citation for this being a Technical foul for delay.

I've just spent 10 minutes looking in the rules book and I can't find that anywhere. I feel pretty sure it's there and I'm just missing it, so if you could give me a citation I would really appreciate it.

Thanks,
Jake

[QUOTE]Originally posted by 112448
Page 60 of the case book, 9.1.2, the second sentence says,
"In this case (after a T.O.), the trail official uses the resuming-play procedure even though the first spaces are not occupied, wheareas in other cases, the spaces would have to be properly occupied before the official would proceed with the free throw administration."

This is the right procedure to use after a TO.But if the other team then refuses to occupy the bottom spaces,you use another rule(10-1-5c).


The R.O.P. procedure was not in effect and he did not warn the fouling team that they were potentially going to receive a 'T' for huddling - which is the only thing i can find you could possibly give a 'T' for in this sitch. My guess is that if you gave the coach a warning, he/she would have his/her players out there pretty quick.

Schmidt did warn the team.He blew his whistle said"there is no time-out.Lets play ball".

In that case, Schmidt should have called a T, not a double lane violation. Now Team A really has a gripe. They should have been allowed to attempt their FT's, they should have received 2 more FT's for the T, and they should have gotten possession of the ball.

IMHO, blowing your whistle and yelling, "there is no time-out. Let's play ball.", is not a very professional ore effective manner for giving a warning. One of the 2 or 3 officials should have walked to the huddle and told the coach that his/her players were required to be on the low blocks or a T could be called for delay.

Jake

I didn't type "10-1-5c" (rule book cite), I typed "10.1.5C (b)" (case book cite). (The rules book uses dashes; the case book uses periods.)

You don't need an official warning because the delay is not for huddling or contact with the free-thrower. The delay is a violation of 10-1-5b (rule book).

Still, I agree that you should tell the coach that the lower spots must be occupied before just issuing the T.

First, to Devdog, I didn't mean to steal your thunder at the start of this topic. I was just chiming in with a similar situation that happened to me. Sorry.
Secondly, When I blew my whistle and said "there's no timeout, lets play ball" I wasn't attempting to warn the teams for delay. I was simply trying to keep the game moving along before a situation did develope. In thinking back about it, maybe we should have gone over to the teams huddles and gotten them back out on the floor. Anyway thanks for all the replies.