heres one really tough one

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Hard

JR-
I think in this case, BOTH references are applicable. I just read 10.1.5.sitC and I concede that it is exactly as you say; however, reading 9.1.2sitA, it also covers this same situation, and states that the technical will be assessed after the first attempt at the second free throw - which, I think, is the way Fritz had it lined up.

The two situations are so similar - it seems to me that 10.1.5sitC allows for immediate T's, but 9.1.2sitA allows for a little leniency, so you could use either case to justify how you deal with it.

And I like the way Fritz handled it.

The reason 9.1.2 SIT.A isn't applicable is because that is dealing with a delay after a TO. There was no TO in the OP.

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

The reason 9.1.2 SIT.A isn't applicable is because that is dealing with a delay after a TO. There was no TO in the OP.

Agreed. There is a difference between a delay situation and a refusal to put the players in their spots...one gets you a warning as per 9.1.2, and the other gets you rung up as per 10.1.5!

[Hard]

One more attempt at justification:

The case book 9.1.2 sitA is for a delay following T.O., but is in reference to the rule 9-1-2 and the penalties for violation of 9-1-2. That rule and the penalties for violation do not reference any conditions as to whether it is after a T.O. or after a foul. It seems that if the defense's coach wants to buy a few seconds with a guaranteed-made free-throw, the rule doesn't say you have to T him/her.

I still think, in reading both these situations and Fritz's account, that Fritz got it right - or at least he can say (based on the readings) that he didn't get it wrong. Am I just being thick, or is there some room for judgement?

[BillyMac]

Does this situation change depending on if the free throws are immediately after the foul, as described in the original post, or if the free throws follow a time out?

Edit: Sorry for the duplication. I didn't fully read Hard's post, but I'm still curious about the two situations.

[deecee]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Does this situation change depending on if the free throws are immediately after the foul, as described in the original post, or if the free throws follow a time out?

yes it does -- one a delay for failure to return to the court after a timeout -- the other is a Technical foul for failure to occupy the bottom 2 spaces.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

Agreed. There is a difference between a delay situation and a refusal to put the players in their spots...one gets you a warning as per 9.1.2, and the other gets you rung up as per 10.1.5!

Yup. You use the resumption of play procedure after a TO or intermission. At all other times, you just tell 'em to get ready. If they don't listen to you...whack.

[Rodical]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Yup. You use the resumption of play procedure after a TO or intermission. At all other times, you just tell 'em to get ready. If they don't listen to you...whack.

The case book sit 10-1-5c does stipulate that "The warning is recorded by the scorer and reported to the head coach", so that should be done before assessing the Technical foul. Right?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Rodical

The case book sit 10-1-5c does stipulate that "The warning is recorded by the scorer and reported to the head coach", so that should be done before assessing the Technical foul. Right?

You're referencing case book play 10.1.5SitC(a) which involves players huddling in the lane. If the huddle delays the FT's, you do record a warning in the scorebook.

We're discussing a play where the defensive players are at their bench and thus are not occupying the bottom two spaces. Iow, it's a different situation entirely. This situation is covered under case book play 10.1.5SitC(b); there's no formal scorebook warning involved. It's fill the spots immediately or get a "T".

Apples and oranges.

The different situations and how to handle each one can get confusing. The only option is to get into the books and memorize how to handle each one.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by deecee

Happened in a game I did about a month ago.

A1 drives to the lane and is fouled in the act of shooting. 2 shots coming up.

Defensive coach calls all 5 of his players to the bench for a chat -- their bench is opposite side of court where the foul shots will be shot. I am opposite side of bench and tell the coach he needs to leave 2 in the lane for the bottom 2 spots. Coach says no he doesn't. I repeat that he has to have the bottom 2 spaces occupied, to which he responds that on the first of 2 they dont have to the spots occupied. By now 4 kids are by bench and 1 is kind of wavering as to who to listen to, me or coach. Coach tells 5th kid to get to huddle and I tell the coach that he needs to send out 2 right now and he ignores me.

What do you do?

Here we go again with an inexperienced official who thinks that he is wonderful, but struggles to handle a simple situation which is clearly detailed in the case book. So sad.

Is this another NFHS ruling that you refuse to enforce because you personally don't like it? Perhaps you administered the FT and called a delayed violation on the defensive team. I can't see why you would be okay with a T here, but not for a player failing to return to the court after being legally OOB.

The only thing that is "really tough" here is to understand your thinking.

[chartrusepengui]

Now - if this all occurs following a TO ......

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Here we go again with an inexperienced official who thinks that he is wonderful, but struggles to handle a simple situation which is clearly detailed in the case book. So sad.

Is this another NFHS ruling that you refuse to enforce because you personally don't like it? Perhaps you administered the FT and called a delayed violation on the defensive team. I can't see why you would be okay with a T here, but not for a player failing to return to the court after being legally OOB.

The only thing that is "really tough" here is to understand your thinking.

Psst...Nevada...see post #10.

[A Pennsylvania Coach]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Here we go again with an inexperienced official who thinks that he is wonderful, but struggles to handle a simple situation which is clearly detailed in the case book. So sad.

Is this another NFHS ruling that you refuse to enforce because you personally don't like it? Perhaps you administered the FT and called a delayed violation on the defensive team. I can't see why you would be okay with a T here, but not for a player failing to return to the court after being legally OOB.

The only thing that is "really tough" here is to understand your thinking.

Man, it sure would be funny, after that rant, if it turned out the only thing wrong here was Nevada's reading comprehension?

[ca_rumperee]

Originally Posted by deecee

I issued the T -- then after we shot the 2 shots for the shooting foul and the T i went over to him and explained him the free throw lane rule. He appologized and we moved on.

However my feedback so far from other officials I have run this by -- has been 100% in favor of these 2 options.

1) Just start the free throws and call a lane violation on a miss
2) delay of game warning

Both of which I have argued they are not supported by the rulebook. And I had mentioned to the coach before the T that they had to occupy the bottom 2 spaces but his mind was made up that they didnt have to. To me the only way for him to have learned the rule was to T him up here. the leve was Boys JV and the coach was fine through the whole tournament and he was fine after the T so wasnt a big deal.

Me: "Coach, I'm telling you what I need from you and your players."
Coach: "I don't think you are right, I'm not giving it to you"
Me: Whack.

Ironically, since we would be clearing the lane to shoot the original FT's, he could have his players over for a chat.... if he can keep his focus!

But, riddle me this... If I now clear the lane for the original two shots, plus the technical foul shots.... the players need to be at mid court. If we are in the first half, with offending coach at the end where the FT's are being attempted, he is cut off from his players, right? No way he can caucus with them..

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by ca_rumperee

But, riddle me this... If I now clear the lane for the original two shots, plus the technical foul shots.... the players need to be at mid court. If we are in the first half, with offending coach at the end where the FT's are being attempted, he is cut off from his players, right? No way he can caucus with them..

You do have a evil streak in you, I like that

Let him talk to his players, just make sure they are all outside the FT restrictions area.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Psst...Nevada...see post #10.

I read what he did. I'm just making the point that this is totally inconsistent with his opinion expressed in the other thread. It's sad, but he doesn't even see the conflict in how he operates.

I actually was surprised that he didn't agree with those "other officials" that he asked who said to just call a violation or give a delay warning. So why does he care what is supported by the rules book in this instance, but not in the other?