Free Throw - Resumption of Play
 

NFHS.... Resumption of play procedure for a free throw following a timeout or intermission.

Part I:

8.2: "...The ball shall be placed at the disposal of the thrower or placed on the floor and the count shall begin...".

Defense is occupying proper lane spaces, offense team is causing the delay by not coming out of their huddle (including the FT shooter).

After placing the ball on the floor, do you immediately call the violation
(9.3.e), or wait to call the violation until after the free thrower enters the free throw semi-circle or until the 10 second count is up (whichever is first)?

Part II:

Offense & Defense are occupying proper lane spaces. After missing the first of 2 FTs, A1 (FT shooter) leaves the semi-circle and walks back to half court, causing an undue delay. How do you handle? Warning for delay? Nothing under 4.47 seems to fit.

Part 1: The official must wait for the 10 seconds or illegal entry into the semi-circle. The team could request a time-out to avoid the impending FT violation.

Part 2: Technical foul. 10-3-5c

Violation?
 

B is properly lined up in the FT lane after a time out.
Team A is still huddled around the coach.
Official places ball at FT line and starts a ten count.
A1 rushes to the FT line and enters the semicircle.....A2-3-4-5 mosey out to half court.

What rule is there to support a violation on A1 if she walks into the half circle and shoots the FT before 10 seconds?

rpp

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

9.1.3 SITUATION J:

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?

Nevada,

Check out this year's illustration of the Resumption of Play Procedure in our Simplified and Illustrated "picture book".

Looks like the Team A players are in the wrong spot????

Sometimes A Technical Foul ...
 

Remember, the Resumption of Play procedure is only used for a free throw after a timeout, or intermission. If the free throw is not after a timeout, or intermission, and the team delays, it's a technical foul.

The Resumption of Play procedure can be used for any throwin, not just a throwin after a timeout, or intermission.

When is the violation called?
 

Is there a rule or case number that determines when the violation is called when the ball is placed on the floor during resumption of play for a free throw?

NevadaRef indicates the violation is not called until the free thrower actually enters the semi-circle, or the 10 second count is reached. Team A could call a TO to avoid the violation.

Can someone point me to the rule or case to support that? I can only find 9.3.e which says the the free thrower can't be outside the semi-circle after the ball is at the disposal of the free thrower. Isn't the ball at disposal when the ball is placed on the floor, which means a violation immediately?

Thanks!

I was thinking the same thing. Without looking, I would assume that when the ball is put on the floor, it is at the thrower's disposal so it would be a violation right then.

I find it difficult to believe the NFHS really wants us to call a violation for the shooter entering the circle on this. Yeah, I know they could call a time out, but if the NFHS really wants to all but ensure a violation occurs on this, they should simply rule it an immediate violation, like in the new case this year on the thrower fumbling the ball away.

Is the intent really any different than the RPP for a throw-in? It seems to me the point is to put them on the clock and make them hustle over and play ball.

Yes, I realize the case play goes out of its way to call out entering the semi circle. But don't you think if their intention was to put the shooting team in a position where they must either call a time out or violate, that they would have been very clear about that?

I'd really like to see a case play on this exact situation.

I don't have the 08-09 version. However, if the diagram is the same as last year, then the new rule would make it incorrect. Of course, the book may have been printed before the passage of that rule or maybe the editors just goofed and forgot to alter the picture.

I don't what else to tell you.

In response to all three of you, I would state that there are times when some of the rules simply do not apply. Along this line of thinking, when the RPP is used the rules of the game become a bit different. One needs to pretend that we have left the normal dimension of basketball and entered the RPP-zone! ;)

More concretely, here are a two case plays which illustrate that a team is not to be penalized for some things that would otherwise be infractions (during the normal course of play):

9.2.9 SITUATION:

In part (a) of the above case, the RPP overrides 9-2-11 and A2 is allowed to immediately return inbounds. In the case below the NFHS directly states that the RPP takes precedence over 10-4-4.

10.4.4 SITUATION C: Following a charged time-out the ball is bounced to A1

for a throw-in even though Team B is still gathered at the sideline. The substitutes
are off the bench and the coaches are huddled around the seated players. Should
Team B be charged with a technical foul(s) for substitutes and coaches being off
the bench or outside the optional coaching box?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

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.

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."

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). :)

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 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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.