Ruling

[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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

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.

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

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

And then what do you do if the FT shooting team violates?

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

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Now we are going to apply a rule that no one is going to understand

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.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

and makes no sense.

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.

[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

[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 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.