Ruling

[All_Heart]

It seems fair to me. If A2 falls into the lane during the free throw then the violation is called immediately. If B2 falls into the lane during the free throw a timeout shouldn't stop the violation from taking place. This would be unfair to Team A.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by All_Heart

It seems fair to me. If A2 falls into the lane during the free throw then the violation is called immediately. If B2 falls into the lane during the free throw a timeout shouldn't stop the violation from taking place. This would be unfair to Team A.

Why? What's the advantage? A could hold off on their timeout if they want the free shot.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

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.

Once again, I am not debating the rule. I am only stating my opinion of the expectations of the rule and how it is applied.

Peace

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Why? What's the advantage? A could hold off on their timeout if they want the free shot.

And that is my point.

Peace

[Adam]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

And that is my point.

Peace

This is twice today, but you're right.

[williebfree]

As a measure of "proactive officiating", do you alert Team B bench that the "delayed" delayed violation is in effect when they return to the court?

Or say nothing and hope your shooter cans the FT.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by williebfree

As a measure of "proactive officiating", do you alert Team B bench that the "delayed" delayed violation is in effect when they return to the court?

Or say nothing and hope your shooter cans the FT.

You alert them with the appropriate signal. (which they may or may not notice)
Why would you hope for one outcome over the other?

[williebfree]

I sincerely do not wish for a team to win or lose, my point was....

It seems prudent to communicate the situation. I am wondering what others think about this as a form of "preventative officiating."


"An ounce of prevention can be worth..."

[slow whistle]

Originally Posted by williebfree

I sincerely do not wish for a team to win or lose, my point was....

It seems prudent to communicate the situation. I am wondering what others think about this as a form of "preventative officiating."

"An ounce of prevention can be worth..."

Trying to understand what exactly you are preventing - a conversation with the coach about what just happened if the shooter misses and you call the violation?

[JRutledge]

I see this as a no-win situation for the official. If you say something before, then coach might complain and want to argue the rule. If you only signal violation without previous communication, then the coach will could complain there was no violation and you would have to explain the situation in the anyway. What will save you is if the coach is reasonable and trusts your judgment. But as many coaches do, they tend to think we have motives we do not have, so you might have to find yourself dealing with comments that might lead to other actions needing to be taken. Think of all the times coaches go crazy over basic rules (slapping the backboard, over the back situations, uniform rules, and foul situations) and you think most coaches are going to just "let this go?" This is why this is a bad interpretation. It is also a very rare situation unlike those other things I listed.

Peace

[williebfree]

Originally Posted by slow whistle

Trying to understand what exactly you are preventing - a conversation with the coach about what just happened if the shooter misses and you call the violation?

Given the circumstances, I know a number of coaches that would not handle this well, if they were unaware that a delayed violation existed. So in that sense, I am "preventing" a coach from making a scene.

I do not have a problem with addressing a coach to explain the situation, de facto.

[fullor30]

Originally Posted by williebfree

Given the circumstances, I know a number of coaches that would not handle this well, if they were unaware that a delayed violation existed. So in that sense, I am "preventing" a coach from making a scene.

I do not have a problem with addressing a coach to explain the situation, de facto.

I can see this both ways. Many a time the delayed violation fist isn't noticed by coaches and it's followed usually by a verbal explanation.

I don't like to get into a habit of being a coach's assistant by alerting them to situations on the floor.

"Coach, I've almost reached a 10 second count"

In this rare instance, I may alert the coach to the delayed call to avoid a rash of questions.

I do tend to tell a coach/team on coming out of TO that they have the endline if applicable.

[slow whistle]

Originally Posted by williebfree

Given the circumstances, I know a number of coaches that would not handle this well, if they were unaware that a delayed violation existed. So in that sense, I am "preventing" a coach from making a scene.

I do not have a problem with addressing a coach to explain the situation, de facto.

I guess I could see say something to the coach as we are coming out of the timeout, but it would be a short conversation...like JRut said you are sort of in a no win and are going to have the conversation anyways if the player misses..

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

What will save you is if the coach is reasonable and trusts your judgment.

I guesss that's possible.....sometimes......someday........maybe.

[deecee]

Or just dont put up the signal until the free throw has been attempted.