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 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..."