Free Throw - Resumption of Play

[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.