case 9.1.1 part B

[Back In The Saddle]

Does this seem a little "out there" to anybody else? A kid gets fouled, maybe even hammered on a shot, he goes to the line, maybe he's a little rattled, perhaps he's a little bit injured, he fumbles the ball during the only situation in the entire game that's designed to be an uncontested, take your time kinda deal, and suddenly now it's "Sorry, Charlie."?

And there are so many questions left completely unanswered. What if the kid can reach the ball without violating? What if the ball bounces away but into the semi circle instead of the lane? What if the player places the ball on the floor in the lane in front of him as part of his habitual ritual? I play with a guy who does that, sets it on the floor, stretches out his bad back, picks it up and takes his throw. What about another player picking it up and passing back to him?

Based on the cited rules, it seems the violation is based on the seeming inevitability of violating either the lane or the 10 count. Neither of which is a given. So does this only come into play when the fumble is such that one of those would HAVE to be violated?

This just seems like a bad change to me.