Ruling

[Mregor]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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.

[muxbule]

Originally Posted by Mregor

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.

[Back In The Saddle]

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?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

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

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

there are a lot of times the team in possession can call a timeout that might prevent a possible violation or infraction

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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

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

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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?

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.