Free Throw - Resumption of Play

[CoachP]

Originally Posted by jritchie

Don't read the situation, read the Ruling! It says "RULING: Violation. After the ball has been placed at the disposal of the free thrower, he/she is not permitted to LEAVE OR ENTER the free-throw semicircle WITHOUT VIOLATING, until restrictions have ended.

C'mon now..."Don't read the situation, read the ruling?" That's the best answer?

Shouldn't the ruling be based solely on the situation?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by BLS

Here's where I'm confused:
9.3.e: After the ball is placed at the disposal of a free thrower:
The free thrower shall not have either foot beyond the vertical plane
of the edge of the free throw line....or the free throw semi-circle.

On the resumption of play, wouldn't the ball be considered at disposal when the ball is placed on the floor - resulting in a violation at that moment?

Or is the ball not considered at disposal when the ball is placed on the floor in this situation?

Yes the ball is at the disposal of the FT. Yes, reading the rule alone might lead to that conclusion. But, the rules (and cases) assume "nothing else is going on" (unless otherwise stated). When "something else" (in this case the RPP), is going on, then the rules might be slightly different.

I'd generally agree with BITS (I think that's who it was) that this rule could / should be changed to allow the "hurry-up" FT to take place.

[walter]

Coach: It doesn't matter. Once the ball is placed at the disposal of the free thrower, whether they are in there or not, they cannot LEAVE and no one else can enter until all restrictions have ended. If they are not in there at the start, the official places the ball on the floor and begins the 10 sec count. If someone enters before the count ends, violation. If the official reaches 10 secs, violation. I think it is kind of dumb and I have never seen it happen, but that is the rule.

[CoachP]

Then Resumption Of Play is an oxymoron....There will be no resumption of PLAY...there will ALWAYS be a violation in this case.

[OHBBREF]

Originally Posted by walter

I think it is kind of dumb and I have never seen it happen, but that is the rule.

It happened a 5 - 6 years ago in a State district or regional game here in OH.

team didn't come out of the huddle and the ball was placed on the floor and the team violated.
It was a close game I would have liked to have been in that locker room afterward.

[BLS]

Originally Posted by CoachP

Then Resumption Of Play is an oxymoron....There will be no resumption of PLAY...there will ALWAYS be a violation in this case.

Couldn't Team A avoid the violation with a timeout?

[CoachP]

Originally Posted by BLS

Couldn't Team A avoid the violation with a timeout?

No, they already used all 5......

[OHBBREF]

Originally Posted by CoachP

Then Resumption Of Play is an oxymoron....There will be no resumption of PLAY...there will ALWAYS be a violation in this case.

But there are other options than the shooter violating -

the ball is live when placed on the floor
the shooting team may call a time out to avoid the violation
the non-shooting team could get lazy and violate causing a double violation

something could happen out side the lane such as a foul
or a "T" on the coach (although) I would try to wait until the violation occured before the Whack.

I feel that part of this is a failure on the official's for not getting them out, using that delay of game warning helps also. if you start getting them out of the huddle from before the jump ball and consistently through out the game you will have a better chance as the game progressess to do so.
find the "coach" responsible for getting them out of the huddle early and always know where they are and use them to get the team out of the huddle.

This year in womens NCAA there is a point of emphasis in getting them out of the huddle - they want you to stay in the huddle and be "obnoxious" to get them out of the huddle.
and they have this year authorized us to put it on the floor for throw-in's to force them out.

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by CoachP

C'mon now..."Don't read the situation, read the ruling?" That's the best answer?

Shouldn't the ruling be based solely on the situation?

Not necessarily. The case book is not just "story problems" with answers. They also use the case book as a place to explain their philosophy on things. And so you will find rulings that touch on more than just the specific play under discussion.

But Bob is right. You still have to consider the scope in which the ruling is made, which invariable includes an implied "nothing else is going on."

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by CoachP

No, they already used all 5......

Doesn't change the fact that they could avoid the violation by calling a TO. (of course, in this case the cure is probably worse than the disease).

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by OHBBREF

But there are other options than the shooter violating -

the ball is live when placed on the floor
the shooting team may call a time out to avoid the violation
the non-shooting team could get lazy and violate causing a double violation

something could happen out side the lane such as a foul
or a "T" on the coach (although) I would try to wait until the violation occured before the Whack.

Creating a situation where the most likely result is a violation then sitting back to see who it will be....that ain't basketball.

The RPP is designed to use the threat of a pending violation to impose a sense of urgency to get out of huddle. It's pretty effective. If you put the ball down on a throw-in, the team usually comes scrambling right out to avoid the five count. And the problem is usually solved for the rest of the night.

The nature of the free throw makes its RPP more complex, but the goal is the same: use the threat of a pending violation to urge the team out of their huddle. It makes no sense to call a violation on the shooter for trying to comply.

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

It makes no sense to call a violation on the shooter for trying to comply.

Originally Posted by CoachP

Why A1 is allowed to go OOB on a RPP to avoid a 5 second violation should be the same reasoning for FT's.

I see what you mean, but I think it's a neccessary evil. We don't allow players to enter/leave marked lane spaces when the ball is at the FTers dispossal (if he/she were there). So it's consistent in that manner.

[CoachP]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

Creating a situation where the most likely result is a violation then sitting back to see who it will be....that ain't basketball.

The RPP is designed to use the threat of a pending violation to impose a sense of urgency to get out of huddle. It's pretty effective. If you put the ball down on a throw-in, the team usually comes scrambling right out to avoid the five count. And the problem is usually solved for the rest of the night.

The nature of the free throw makes its RPP more complex, but the goal is the same: use the threat of a pending violation to urge the team out of their huddle. It makes no sense to call a violation on the shooter for trying to comply.

That's exactly what I am trying to say, but you knew how to word it and I didn't.

Why A1 is allowed to go OOB on a RPP to avoid a 5 second violation should be the same reasoning for FT's. Isn't RPP intended to get the game moving along?

Or better yet, erase the dang semicircle, we don't do no stinkin' jumpballs anymore!

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by ch1town

I see what you mean, but I think it's a neccessary evil. We don't allow players to enter/leave marked lane spaces when the ball is at the FTers dispossal (if he/she were there). So it's consistent in that manner.

From NFHS 8-1-2: "...The ball shall be placed at the disposal of the thrower or placed on the floor and the count shall begin. Either or both teams may be charged with a violation...."

I'm not arguing we should ignore "common" free throw violations, nor do I think they want us to. In fact, in the scenario described in NFHS 9.1.2.A signaling the delayed violation and calling the violation by B for not being in the bottom spot is central to the workings of the RPP.

But penalizing the shooter for entering the semicircle or for already having broken the plane of the semicircle as has been suggested... those would be pretty unusual violations to ever call, and would definitely be counterproductive to the intent of the RRP.

BTW, I'm intrigued by the use of the "may" in the rule fragment above. It seems to grant discretion to the official whether or not to "charge" a team with any violations they do commit. Judicious use of such discretion would allow the RPP to achieve the desired effect.

[OHBBREF]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

Creating a situation where the most likely result is a violation then sitting back to see who it will be....that ain't basketball.

The RPP is designed to use the threat of a pending violation to impose a sense of urgency to get out of huddle. It's pretty effective. If you put the ball down on a throw-in, the team usually comes scrambling right out to avoid the five count. And the problem is usually solved for the rest of the night.

The solution to the problem for players and coaches is:

Get out of the huddle on the first horn and be ready to play on the second horn.

I noticed something interesting Mechanically in the NCAA instructions to officials on the meeting slides Walk to you position for resumption of play after team breaks the huddle
So if teams brake the huddle they will have time to get set before the ball is placed at the disposal for the resumption of play in either situation.