Q#34 Resumption of Play

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

From the Answer Key, the correct answer is "TRUE" and the rules references are 7-5-1 & 8-1-2.

Logic seems to point this way. Other wise it would simply be another delay of game infraction (one violation, then a T) and would be listed under there. A team would never get a second violation, which they do.

But where I am struggling is to find how 7.5.1.C could even happen if there is no carryover to another situation. It could only happen if we ignore the word "MAKE" in the sentence "Following a violation by one team only, if that team continues to delay when authorized to MAKE a throw in...". Under this section how is is possible for team A to violate, Team B NOT violate (because that would be subsection D), and team A get another throw in in the same situation?

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by KSRef07

Logic seems to point this way. Other wise it would simply be another delay of game infraction (one violation, then a T) and would be listed under there. A team would never get a second violation, which they do.

But where I am struggling is to find how 7.5.1.C could even happen if there is no carryover to another situation. It could only happen if we ignore the word "MAKE" in the sentence "Following a violation by one team only, if that team continues to delay when authorized to MAKE a throw in...". Under this section how is is possible for team A to violate, Team B NOT violate (because that would be subsection D), and team A get another throw in in the same situation?

I see your point. I think it's just a bad wording again.

My personal opinion is that the entire rule book should be completely re-written. But I'm not volunteering.

[rainmaker]

Okay, plowing around a little, here's a comment in the case book after 7.5.1
COMMENT: Each different time a team has delayed returning to the court after a time-out or between quarters, the resumption-of-play procedure should be used. Hwever, if a team refuses to play after [T's] have been assessed, the game may be forfeited."

But that's last year's book. Maybe it's different this year.

Edited to add: Dexter beat me to it. sheez...

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

Okay, plowing around a little, here's a comment in the case book after 7.5.1
COMMENT: Each different time a team has delayed returning to the court after a time-out or between quarters, the resumption-of-play procedure should be used. Hwever, if a team refuses to play after [T's] have been assessed, the game may be forfeited."

But that's last year's book. Maybe it's different this year.

Nope, the COMMENT in the case play is still the same in this year's book..

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Nope, the COMMENT in the case play is still the same in this year's book..

Okay, well, at least I got this answer right. One out of three. So much for my test score this year.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by mick

If the answer is true, then the question should be written differently.

Maybe. I'm not interested in playing lawyer tonight, so I'll just reiterate that the answer is "true", the 'RPP" does start over each time, and we should use that as a learnign experience / reference.

[Mark Dexter]

Originally Posted by mick

Yes, the resumimg play procedure is used in each case, but penalty changes.
Thus, a carry over exists because of value added from doing it a 2nd time.

We may have to agree to disagree on our reading of the comment.

In addition, the lead-in at the end of 7-5-1 reads "in each situation." To me, that means that articles (a)-(d) reset each time, and that we would not assess a T for RPP delay unless a team had actually violated the 5 second count on that actual throw-in.

Indirectly, I think there's also somewhat strong evidence in the fact that the rules do not state that RPP delay should be marked in the official book, while the other DoG situations specifically are. (2-11-8, 4-47, 9-2-11, 10-1-5)

[mick]

Originally Posted by Mark Dexter

In addition, the lead-in at the end of 7-5-1 reads "in each situation." To me, that means that articles (a)-(d) reset each time, and that we would not assess a T for RPP delay unless a team had actually violated the 5 second count on that actual throw-in.

Indirectly, I think there's also somewhat strong evidence in the fact that the rules do not state that RPP delay should be marked in the official book, while the other DoG situations specifically are. (2-11-8, 4-47, 9-2-11, 10-1-5)

If it can be determined what the heck "initial delay" means and why it is used (only) in the case of the missing thrower, then, I think, the question will be answered.
In the handbook [p.240 Failure to have the court ready..- Other Team delays] and the rule book [R4-38, Resumption of play], it says "violation instead of technical foul for initial delay". Further [in Handbook- Other Team delays- Penalty] A technical foul shall be charged in all situations (initial delay exception being previously noted).

If you want to reset each time a team refuses to provide a thrower, then, by all means, let them do it on each and every throw-in, ... or just let them do it once and then start Whacking 'em.

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by mick

If you want to reset each time a team refuses to provide a thrower, then, by all means, let them do it on each and every throw-in,

How is that any different from letting them continue to violate each and every time they hold the ball more than five seconds without throwing it in? Other violations don't accumulate to technical fouls. Why should this infraction?

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by Mark Dexter

Indirectly, I think there's also somewhat strong evidence in the fact that the rules do not state that RPP delay should be marked in the official book, while the other DoG situations specifically are. (2-11-8, 4-47, 9-2-11, 10-1-5)

In addition to the fact that RPP and DoG are treated separately. THey are different procedures.

[Mark Dexter]

Originally Posted by mick

If it can be determined what the heck "initial delay" means and why it is used (only) in the case of the missing thrower, then, I think, the question will be answered.

Agreed.

If you want to reset each time a team refuses to provide a thrower, then, by all means, let them do it on each and every throw-in, ... or just let them do it once and then start Whacking 'em.

I'm okay with agreeing to disagree on this one.

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by Mark Dexter

Agreed.
I'm okay with agreeing to disagree on this one.

Mark, what's your take on the wording of 7-5-1c? It does make it sound as though they are cumulative over the game, although I agree they're not supposed to be.

[mick]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

How is that any different from letting them continue to violate each and every time they hold the ball more than five seconds without throwing it in? Other violations don't accumulate to technical fouls. Why should this infraction?

I have absolutely no idea.

"They" write [under Failure to have the Court ready for play Following a Time-out Warning]:

"In Simple Terms - A team will receive one delay warning per team for any of the four team delay actions. The next occurence of delay will result in an immediate technical foul." - 2007--08 High School Basketball Rules By Topic [p.240]

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by mick

I have absolutely no idea.

"They" write [under Failure to have the Court ready for play Following a Time-out Warning]:

"In Simple Terms - A team will receive one delay warning per team for any of the four team delay actions. The next occurence of delay will result in an immediate technical foul." - 2007--08 High School Basketball Rules By Topic [p.240]

But those are specific situations that are listed under DoG headings. Providing a player for a throw-in isn't one of those situations. Not-providing-a-player isn't a DoG, it's just a violation. Are you thinking that because the word "delay" is used in the description of the situation, it falls into the DoG category?

[mick]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

But those are specific situations that are listed under DoG headings. Providing a player for a throw-in isn't one of those situations. Not-providing-a-player isn't a DoG, it's just a violation. Are you thinking that because the word "delay" is used in the description of the situation, it falls into the DoG category?

But, Jewel,
"Not providing a player..." and "resumption of play procedure" may be a delay of game situation. It's there, same page, same topic, same penalty with noted "initial delay". Look it up. [still on p.240]