Q#34 Resumption of Play
 

The part one rules test Q34 states, "The ROP procedure starts over in each situation and a violation in one situation does not carry over to another". See rule 7.5.1. C. This rule seems to indicate that, if only one team violates (say Team A), the "next" time Team A violates under ROP WHEN AUTHORIZED TO MAKE A THROW IN (which could be 10 minutes later), is charged a technical foul. This implies one situation DOES carry over to another. Thoughts?

My thought is this is no different then a Delay of Game. Give the warning and move on, violate again and it should be penalized. I don't have an way of supporting that but its my thought on the situation.

I see that point, but also the logic that, under that scenario, there would NEVER be a second violation by one team during a game (like delay of game). Somehow that does not seem to be the intent, otherwise they would just put it under the delay of game situations.

The wording in 7.5.1.c is talking about one resumption of play situation only. 10 minutes later, you've started over. I think you can see that in that it's all under Article 1 which begins "After a time out..." so it's discussing a specific resumption and not the cumulative resumptions over the course of the game. in item c, "...if one team continues to delay when authorized..." They're delaying, the violation gets called, Team B delays gets a violation, now if Team A CONTINUES to delay, then you get the T.

But if Team A delays, gets the violation, then Team B puts the ball in, play goes on, get another TO, and Team A delays now, well, it's just another violation. You go back and start over. Unlike with Delay of Game Warnings/Technical Fouls which build over the course of the game.

I tend to agree with your logic, but subsection C relates to only one team violating while subsect D relates to BOTH teams violating. So, here is the scenario: Team A violates. Team B gets the ball and inbounds. (This falls under subsection C). Under this situation, how could Team A "Continue to violate when authorized to MAKE a throw in", unless it was at another time in the game?

If Team A violated, then Team B violated (This falls under subsection D), then Team A is now authorized to MAKE another throw in and would get a T since BOTH teams violated. This is pretty clear.

bump it up the list.... bump bump.

4-38 specifies a violation for the intitial call only. [If violation -> oppponent get the ball.]
7-5-1c "clarifies" that if that team does it again, then a technical foul is charged. [If "T" -> opponent shoots and gets the ball for being a repeating offense.]
7-5-1d further "clarifies"

So, are you thinking the answer to the question is "false" = it DOES carry over from one situation to another? If so, this means no team could ever violate twice in one game. We have all seen multiple violations in one game. How do you reconcile the two?

"The ROP procedure starts over in each situation and a violation in one situation does not carry over to another". -False

In the "no thrower" situation, you may violate only once. Once a team incurs the penalty for that violation [lose the ball], any subsequent penalty is determined to be, not a violation, but a technical foul. For the same action [or inaction, as it were], the situation was remembered and the penalty has escalated.

Mick, I see where your reading of the rules would lead you to think that way. Let me just make sure I understand you. You're saying that, after a TO in Q1, team A doesn't make someone available for a throw-in. We do a 5 second count, award B the throw, which B completes successfully. Now, in Q4, A has the ball after another TO. They're not available, so you place the ball down and assess a technical foul for delay?

If that's what you're saying, I have to disagree based on the comment accompanying 7.5.1, which says "Each different time a team has delayed returning to the court after a time-out or between quarters, the RPP should be used." (Emphasis mine.)

But it starts over next time, Mick. If they go through this process and avoid the T, next time there's a TO or intermission it starts over.

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

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. :)

Seems to me that the only way to avoid a "T" the next time, is to avoid the violation the initial time. :)

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

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.

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...

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.

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.

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)

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. :)

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?

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

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.

I have absolutely no idea. http://www.clicksmilies.com/s1106/fr...smiley-013.gif

"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?

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] :)

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

Mark,


If you are defaulting to 7-5-1, are you able to set a scenario for:

c. - "Following a violation by one team only, if that team continues to delay when authorized to make a throw-in, it is a technical foul."

• What is the violation ?
• What is the continuation of delay after that violation ?
• When is it a technical foul ?

Thanks.

Mick, I think you've unlocked it for me.

Still don't like it, though, and I may get a more official interp through my local board.

That said, would you read the technical foul (for continued delay) to apply to any throw-in or only a throw-in after the RPP?

...Just the Time-out and Intermission throw-ins seems to be included in "Their" exception.
Dumb rule, ain't it?
Even if it's violated, it won't be enforced. :cool:

My point exactly. If it DOES reset every time, then how would subsection C ever ocur? Give me an example where ONLY one team (Team A) violates in a situation, then violates AGAIN in the same RPP situation when authorized to MAKE a throw in.

How would they ever get a chance to make a second throw in in the same situation if the other team didn't violate? If Team A violated, then Team B makes a throw in that, say, went OOB on the far side without touching anybody, then Team A would get the throw in back at the same location but it would be a DIFFERENT situation now. It is no longer after a TO. If they didn't provide a thrower now, the RPP would begin again with no T.

So, How does subsection C apply at all?????

Well, yer just an agitator, KSRef07. :)

I, for one, would have been happy to merely overlook the rule and basked in ignorance for the rest of the year. I've been comfortable there for a long time.

Go ahead and bask. Just remember to quit before you go blind.

You ain't gonna see this play in your lifetime, Mick. Third world play. I've never seen a technical foul called during an RRP, and I've never heard of a "T" being called during one either.

The exam answer key says that the answer is <b>TRUE</b>. If you ever do get the perfect storm, you now know what to do.

...And you can assure me the answer is correct?
That was rhetorical, ...nevermind. :)

Could it be that they imagine the following?

Team A has not returned to the court to start the second half. It is their ball.
5 second count. Violation. Team B now inbounds and scores unmolested.
Team A is still in the locker room. Team A is now authorized to make a thrown-in. But since Team A is still in the locker room, that team continues to delay. Therefore, it is a technical foul.

Fits like a glove.

Nobody yell at me, I'm just trying to help.

I don't think so, cuz Team B doesn't get the ball while Team A only has 4 players.
That specific rule isn't directed at the number of players on the court to be a violation, it merely wants someone to throw-in the ball.

If Team A is still in the locker room, then the RPP doesn't apply. Team A has one minute to appear, then they get a T.

Um, no.

But I can assure you that on the answer key, it says <b>TRUE</b>.:)

Didn't know that. Where do we find this?

Ok, they're not it the locker room. Same scenario, they just don't come out on the court for whatever reason. Observing a moment of silence for the impending unemployment of Joe Torre, for example.

10-1-5(a) covers that situation. We don't put the ball down and count when the team entitled to the throw-in isn't physically present.

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.

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.

I would ?
I didn't know that.

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.

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

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.

You wrote:

Quote:

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. ;)

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.

I didn't know Elmer Fudd was an official. :D 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).

http://www.nonstick.com/sounds/Elmer.gif

AHHHH. English / grammar is not my forte. :o

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.

Is that a violation carry-over?

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.

Why not? The next dead ball was the horn (or not). :)

The RPP only applies after a TO or intermission. Not after a dead ball.

Yes, indeed. ...The dead ball with the horn.

Some of this is semantics, since the rules don't explicitly state when the RPP starts and when it ends. You say it ends when the ball becomes live (I guess). It might also end when neither team is delaying. In any even,t even if it's not part of the RPP, but you're still going to have a T under 10-1-5b, right?

If a team tries to complete a throw-in but fails, then it's a violation. If they fail to even try, then it's a T. The RPP lessens the penalty for the T (to a V)under certain circumstances.

Once Team A violated and Team B got the throw in, and did so successfully, the RPP situation is over. If the horn blows for halftime a minute later, a violation afterward is a new situation - no T for the first violation. It's a new RPP situation. 10-1-5-b (except for the RPP carve out for TOs and Intermissions) refers to an actionless contest, which would be a T for the first violation and then can be a forfeit situation.