Free Throw - Resumption of Play

[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......

[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).

[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.

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.

[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.

[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

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.

[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!

[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.

[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.