Free Throw - Resumption of Play

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

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...."

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.

No, it is possible to actually have no violation....B is late coming out of the huddle but A1 is ready. Ball is placed at the disposal of A1....and the signal for a delayed violation against B is indicated. A1 makes the FT. No violation has occured.

[Nevadaref]

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.

I happen to agree. We should start a campaign to get the ruling changed.

I only responded as I did earlier because CoachP ask for a ruling which stated that this was indeed a violation. It doesn't matter what you or I think, it only matters that right now the NFHS says this is illegal.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

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...."
...
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.

The use of the word may indicates that either team COULD violate and then be charged with such OR play may proceed such that no violation occurs and thus no violation need be called. The wording leaves open both possibilities.

There is no discretion granted. If either team violates, then it must be called according to the FT provisions. So a delayed violation by the defense would not be called if the FT attempt is successful.