Q#34 Resumption of Play

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

4-38 (RPP) is a good place to start. Then 10-1-5b


If the teams are at the benches, then use the RPP. If a team is not at the bench, then enforce 10-1-5a.

Keep in mind, once the ball has been put in play after a TO (e.g., Team B after a Team A violation) then it is a live ball and not a RPP situation. Say Team B scores while A is scrambling from their benches (after A has been 5 counted) and for some reason they don't put the ball in play again, it's just a 5 count. RPP only applies after a TO or intermission. Then we have an actionless contest and a forfeit is imminent.

[mick]

Originally Posted by KSRef07

Then we have an actionless contest and a forfeit is imminent.

Imminent?
Where may I read that rule?
Thanks.

Originally Posted by mick

Imminent?
Where may I read that rule?
Thanks.

By that I mean you would certainly tell the coach that if his team didn't take the court withing X seconds you would forfeit the game. The RPP would be the least of his worries.

[mick]

Originally Posted by KSRef07

By that I mean you would certainly tell the coach that if his team didn't take the court withing X seconds you would forfeit the game. The RPP would be the least of his worries.

I would ?
I didn't know that.

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

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.

Originally Posted by Mark Dexter

It does, but that's where I go back to the body of 7-5-1 itself and the "In each situation" qualifier.

Personally, after looking everything over, I suspect that the wording of 7-5-1c is left over from a previously well-written rule some years ago, and hasn't been changed to reflect other changes to the rule. I have no evidence to back that up, since I don't keep an attic full of old rulebooks. But we've seen other situations where a rule change in one part of the book screwed things up somewhere else. In the last few years, we've been able to get them changed pretty quickly, since we've got such sturdy communications technology. But perhaps this one particular item -- which after all occurs very,very seldom -- just didn't get modified once and has flown under the radar since then.

So whoever it is on the rules committee that is watching this board and getting our suggestions put into action, PAY ATTENTION!! This item needs addressing.

Originally Posted by mick

I would ?
I didn't know that.

Don't tell me you would forfeit a HS game without some type of "last chance" communication to the offending coach! Would you?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

Personally, after looking everything over, I suspect that the wording of 7-5-1c is left over from a previously well-written rule some years ago, and hasn't been changed to reflect other changes to the rule. I have no evidence to back that up, since I don't keep an attic full of old rulebooks. But we've seen other situations where a rule change in one part of the book screwed things up somewhere else. In the last few years, we've been able to get them changed pretty quickly, since we've got such sturdy communications technology. But perhaps this one particular item -- which after all occurs very,very seldom -- just didn't get modified once and has flown under the radar since then.

So whoever it is on the rules committee that is watching this board and getting our suggestions put into action, PAY ATTENTION!! This item needs addressing.

I think the word "continuous" (uninterrupted; unbroken) is clear. If A violates, then B inbounds, then A inbounds, the delay has been interrupted. The next delay is not a "continuous" delay.

[mick]

Originally Posted by KSRef07

Don't tell me you would forfeit a HS game without some type of "last chance" communication to the offending coach! Would you?

You wrote:

Originally Posted by KSRef07

By that I mean you would certainly tell the coach that if his team didn't take the court withing X seconds you would forfeit the game. The RPP would be the least of his worries.

Had you written that I could certainly tell the coach, I would not have been surprised, but since you said I would certainly tell the coach, you make it seem like you've seen me in action.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by KSRef07

Keep in mind, once the ball has been put in play after a TO (e.g., Team B after a Team A violation) then it is a live ball and not a RPP situation. Say Team B scores while A is scrambling from their benches (after A has been 5 counted) and for some reason they don't put the ball in play again, it's just a 5 count. RPP only applies after a TO or intermission. Then we have an actionless contest and a forfeit is imminent.

Do you have a reference for this? I'm not saying I disagree, but if you follwoed the ruling in 10.1.5A (which is a FT situation) then you might come to the conclusion that if A delays (the second delay above), then it's a T. If they continue to delay even after that -- that's when you go toward the forfeit.

Also (not for KS Ref, but for Mick and rainmaker, I think) 7.5.1A COMMENT contains wording about applying the procedure each time.

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

but if you follwoed the ruling in 10.1.5A

I didn't know Elmer Fudd was an official. He's carrying a pretty big whistle, though and I bet he doesn't get any flack from coaches, except from that one wascally wabbit coach at CSU (Carrot State University).

Originally Posted by mick

You wrote:

Had you written that I could certainly tell the coach, I would not have been surprised, but since you said I would certainly tell the coach, you make it seem like you've seen me in action.

AHHHH. English / grammar is not my forte.

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

I think the word "continuous" (uninterrupted; unbroken) is clear. If A violates, then B inbounds, then A inbounds, the delay has been interrupted. The next delay is not a "continuous" delay.

Well, I think your interp is correct. But as KS asks, when would the "continuous delay" ever, ever happen?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

Well, I think your interp is correct. But as KS asks, when would the "continuous delay" ever, ever happen?

As I mentioned above -- follow 10.1.5A, but apply it to a throw-in, not to a FT.

Or, Team B is not ready. The ball is handed to Team A who inbounds and scores (insert Padget joke about it taking some length of time for the team to do so). Team B still doesn't appear for the subsequent throw-in. Technical foul to Team B.

[mick]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

As I mentioned above -- follow 10.1.5A, but apply it to a throw-in, not to a FT.

Or, Team B is not ready. The ball is handed to Team A who inbounds and scores (insert Padget joke about it taking some length of time for the team to do so). Team B still doesn't appear for the subsequent throw-in. Technical foul to Team B.

Is that a violation carry-over?

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

As I mentioned above -- follow 10.1.5A, but apply it to a throw-in, not to a FT.

Or, Team B is not ready. The ball is handed to Team A who inbounds and scores (insert Padget joke about it taking some length of time for the team to do so). Team B still doesn't appear for the subsequent throw-in. Technical foul to Team B.

No, that would not be part of the RPP, since the second delay is not after a TO or intermission. A live ball happened inbetween.