heres one really tough one
 

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?

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.

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.

1. I tell one of Team A's players to go stand in team B's huddle
This will break them up and I eliminate having to issue number 2 choice.

2. I stick the team B with delay of game

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. :)

You informed them more than once that they must occupy the lane spaces and they continued to refuse. As a result of their refusal, they don't have to occupy them because the FTs will be followed 2 more for the T that you'd call. See, they don't HAVE to, but there is a cost. If he's been a good little boy throughout hte game, you may wish to mention that the penalty will be a T when giving them their last chace.

THe rule is that this is a technical foul. 10.1.5C(b).

I'd do what I could to prevent this, but if the coach insisted, ...

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.

You directed him to his team's duty and he refused. Issue the T. Like bob said, try to prevent the T, but if wants to play with fire, burn his butt to the chair.

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.

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.

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.

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.