heres one really tough one

[Beemer]

After working a Friday night, a bunch of the guys and I got together over some food and drinks, and were talking about a very similar rule. From our discussions, in the rule book it states something very close to this effect: The bottom two lane positions shall be occupied by the non-shooting team, the next two may be ocupied by the shooting team, and the top two spots may be occupied by the non-shooting team.

I don't recall any mention of this only applying to certain free-throws (obviously not on a T because thats an exception), so I would have to agree with you. But here's the interesting facet, turns out that if the shooting team pulled their two men out of their spots, the non-shooting team can occupy the first four lane positions.

I'm on my way to lunch, I'll grab by manuals on my way back in so I can reference this.

[loners4me]

My initial thought is a T, based on willful disregard to the rules. I think a warning was already given.

[Lotto]

Originally Posted by loners4me

My initial thought is a T, based on willful disregard to the rules. I think a warning was already given.

I agree...he's earned the T.

And now he's right, 'cause his kids don't need to occupy those lane spaces.

[Ed Maeder]

This falls under 10-1-5b or case play 10.1.5 Situation C. It is a "team technical" foul if after being directed to occupy the required spaces, there is a delay. I'm slow today. What Bob said.

[Fritz]

Oops, had this exact situation this past weekend in a very close game (the defensive team had no more timeouts and was using the free throw as one, so to speak). However, my partner and I, after the exchange with the coach about having his players ready, gave the ball to the free thrower for her first attempt while signalling a lane violation. She missed, meaning she would get another "first" attempt for the lane violation. At this point, I informed the coach (I was trail) that they were being warned for a delay and that further delay would be a T. He then sent his girls to the lane like normal.

From the posts above, sounds like we should have gone right to a team technical with no warning or "1st" attempt by the thrower?

[deecee]

Originally Posted by Fritz

Oops, had this exact situation this past weekend in a very close game (the defensive team had no more timeouts and was using the free throw as one, so to speak). However, my partner and I, after the exchange with the coach about having his players ready, gave the ball to the free thrower for her first attempt while signalling a lane violation. She missed, meaning she would get another "first" attempt for the lane violation. At this point, I informed the coach (I was trail) that they were being warned for a delay and that further delay would be a T. He then sent his girls to the lane like normal.

From the posts above, sounds like we should have gone right to a team technical with no warning or "1st" attempt by the thrower?

If you didnt make this mistake you wouldnt learn. My partner and I kicked the successive timout rule -- BJV -- and for some reason we both thought a team couldnt call 3 successive timouts during a quarter. Completly kicked it and after confessed to a board member. He was understanding but in reality it bothers me to screw a rule up. Guarantee I wont make that mistake again.

[Hard]

The way I see this, Fritz handled it appropriately. Isn't this covered by 9-1-2?
Penalty for violation of the free throw provision by the free-thrower's opponent is to allow the free-thrower an additional try.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Hard

The way I see this, Fritz handled it appropriately. Isn't this covered by 9-1-2?
Penalty for violation of the free throw provision by the free-thrower's opponent is to allow the free-thrower an additional try.

R9-1-2 isn't the applicable rule, as already noted above, This situation is covered under rule 10-1-5(c). Case book play 10.1.5SiTC(b) is the exact play being discussed. Fritz had it wrong.

[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.