Ruling

[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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

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

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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 already occured 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.