Free Throw - Resumption of Play

[CoachP]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

No rule, but the Case Book says this is a violation.

9.1.3 SITUATION J:

The official administering a free throw awarded to A1 places the ball at his/her disposal. A1, who is inside the free-throw semicircle leaves the semicircle to confer with a teammate. 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. (9-1-3e Penalty 1)

A1, who is INSIDE the free-throw semicircle leaves the semicircle ........

How can he/she violate by ENTERING the semicircle? The ONLY violation that can occur is LEAVING the semi circle.

[jritchie]

Originally Posted by CoachP

A1, who is INSIDE the free-throw semicircle leaves the semicircle ........

How can he/she violate by ENTERING the semicircle? The ONLY violation that can occur is LEAVING the semi circle.

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.

[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?

[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.

[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 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.

[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.

[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."