thank you. It's amazing what you can find when you rtfm. Heck, you might even find out that something else you knew for sure just isn't true.

Thanks JR........

The ruling makes sense to me. The violation "counts" depending on whether the FT is made. If we have to wait till after a time-out to know that, so be it. Enforce the penalty if the player misses.

No Casebook ??? No Problem ...
 

9.1.3 SITUATION C: A1 is preparing to attempt a free throw. Prior to A1’s
release of the ball, B1 fakes causing A2 to enter the lane prematurely. A1 then requests and is granted a time-out. RULING: Upon resuming play, A1 is entitled to a free throw and the official shall use the proper signal indicating a violation by B1 prior to the granting of the time-out. If the free throw is successful, the violation is ignored, if unsuccessful a substitute throw is awarded. (9-1-3b)

Well I've learned my something new for the day. Never would have thought that.

That's what makes reading this forum so freaking valuable. Along with laughing at some responses what you learn is invaluable.

IMHO it makes complete sense. The defensive team has violated. The penalty for the violation is a replacement free throw if the original free throw is missed. Why would a time out change that?

Can you name me any other violation that can be canceled by calling a time out?

I do not agree about it making sense. For one there are a lot of times the team in possession can call a timeout that might prevent a possible violation or infraction by the team without the ball. And a FT violation is one of the few situations where there is a delay. I think it is kind of silly to apply a violation after the ball has been made dead as a result of a timeout, then come back and apply the non-called violation. That is just my opinion.

Peace

True, but are there any times when a team can call a time-out to negate a violation that has already occurred?

I can't think of one off the top of my head.

Can you think of any other violation that a team would request a timeout that was not called, then come back and enforce the violation?

I cannot think one either. ;)

Peace

All of them.

I *think* the intent of the rule is "don't cheat to get a rebounding advantage." If that's true, then I could see the case play / rule being changed to "Excp: If there's a TO, then the violation is ignored."

But, until they do that, the case play stands.

I am not debating the validity of the current rule, I think it is a dumb rule and inconsistent to still potentially violate after a timeout for a previous action. I guarantee this rule is not applied properly. And when applied it is going to cause a stir.

Peace

I think that may be the flaw in your thinking - the violation has <B>already occured</B> when the player stepped in the lane, there is simply a delay before it's called or ignored. This case play just says the delay continues through a TO as well.

As far as BITS' question, the closest I can come up with is the example where A1 is on a breakaway, and B1 goes OOB on purpose to get you to call the violation before A1 scores. I believe the case play says we delay our call of the violation until the basket is made. (Only ignore altogether if it's near the end of a period.) What if A's coach has a brain fart and requests a TO before A1 scores. Do we still delay B1's violation? Does it go away altogether after the TO? If we enforce the violation, where does A get to put the ball in play? If we enforce the violation after the TO, the throw-in would be closest to where B violated, which could be a long way from where A was when the TO was called.

I think the problem with this discussion; this is not about anyone's thinking. You have a violation that may or may not apply, but we will wait and see if there after a timeout and if the shot does not go in. That to me is silly. And then what do you do if the FT shooting team violates? Now we are going to apply a rule that no one is going to understand and makes no sense.

This is like discussing whether you like Lebron James over Kobe Bryant. There is no wrong answer; it is just a personal preference. I think it is a silly rule application when the action could have been enforced if the team did not call the timeout. And since this would be very rare, I can imagine this is not a rule that is applied across the board properly and another reason why rules are made or created. You are not going to change my mind because you feel differently. It is a dumb rule and inconsistent with other rules.

Peace

The same thing you would do if the TO had not occured - follow 9-1 Penalties (4). It's pretty straight-forward.

I think it's only because it rarely happens. I've actually had to call this once, and it was a pretty simple explanation, "The TO doesn't erase the delayed violation". Coach didn't like it initially, but understood once it was explained.

Well, maybe to you. :) Remeber, in this whole discussion, I haven't said whether I like it, only that I understand how it is to be called. There are many instances where "common sense" or "I think this should be called differently to be more fair" exists, but we're only left with following the rules, whether we agree or not.