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.

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!

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?

Variation ???
 

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.

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.

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?

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.

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. http://www.runemasterstudios.com/gra...ages/whaat.gif

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

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

<font size=1>Psst...Nevada...see post #10.</font size>

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

Sounds like we have a pretty clear cut case.
 

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..

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.

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? :confused:

That's not correct. They merely need to adhere to the restrictions for players NOT in marked lane spaces. There is no rule that requires them to be anywhere else.

And that he is seated while speaking with them. ;)

A common misconception. The players need to be beyond the 3-point line and beyond the free throw line extended -- all the places they are allowed if they are not in a marked lane space.

The former.

Thanks Nevada and BayState..
 

... my edurcation continues!

So, while he is seated, coach could caucus with his players (who would need to be on the court above FT line extended and outside of 3-point line) during the 2 tries for the foul, and the 2 tries for the technical.

Yes...as long as the players remain on the court.

The technical for not occupying the lane spaces would be a team technical and not charged indirectly to the head coach, wouldn't it? Therefore, he'd still be able to stand to talk to his team?

I appreciate Hard's support and interpretation, but after reviewing my case book and rules last night, I agree with other comments that my partner and I applies the "delay after TO" procedure instead of, as in our case, the coach simply refused to put his players on the court to begin play.

Live and learn......

Nevada?

Yoohoo, Nevada? :D

I don't believe the coach needs to be seated during the shooting of the technical free throws while talking to his players. I don't have my rule book with me, but I think he can stand "during" the technical. Of course, he needs his seatbelt when play resumes.

http://www.ahapuzzles.com/homer_simpson_doh.jpg

If the HC is charged either directly or indirectly with the T, then he/she needs to be seated before the ball becomes live on the first FT attempt following the T.

Whew...I always get anxious when I disagree with Nevada on a rules reference.

In fact, I was 99% sure I had probably missed an exception somewhere that made this an indirect on the coach! :D

Nope. See rule 10-5NOTES1.

nevada -- RE the T for delay returning inbounds -- I just feel a Technical is a very heavy handed penalty. violation is fair and reasonable -- like I said in the other post the FED screwed this up and I hope they change it if they want it called.

Can you please show my your rules-making badge? :D

Last I checked, your job was to enforce all rules - not just the ones that you agree with. :confused:

right -- i am the only one who feels this way about the @#$@# delay in returning inbounds violation.

I agree with you here....delaying returning inbounds should be the same as leaving the court for an unauthorized reason....they should both be a violation.....they're not currently, but they should be.