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?

[SmokeEater]

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.

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by KSRef07

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?

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.

Originally Posted by rainmaker

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.

[mick]

Originally Posted by KSRef07

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?

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"

Originally Posted by mick

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?

[mick]

Originally Posted by KSRef07

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.

[Mark Dexter]

Originally Posted by mick

"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.)

[Adam]

Originally Posted by mick

"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.

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.

[Jurassic Referee]

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

[mick]

Originally Posted by Mark Dexter

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.)

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.

[mick]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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.

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

[mick]

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.

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