Ruling
 

Chewing the fat after pregame last night and one of the crew came up with this sitch.

A1 shooting free throw, we have a lane violation on B2 which prompts a delayed call with extended fist. Prior to shooting, A coach is granted timeout.

Upon resumption do you honor delayed violation call? Can't find any backup or casebook scenario. I said yes, as it would be similar to running endline privilege that would apply after a timeout.

Thoughts?

It's right in the case book. The violation carries over to the FT after the TO.

I would think you would have to just grant the timeout. The delay violation would only apply if there is a missed shot. The FT shooting team did not complete the process to benefit from the violation.

I do not have the book in front of me, but this sounds like a no-brainer in this situation.

Peace

Bob, where is the reference?

Peace

fullor30:

Yes. The delayed dead violation stays in effect, even if B2 occupies a different position on the court after the TO or is subsituted for during the TO. I am certain that there has been either a Casebook Play or an Interpretation or both published in the past.

MTD, Sr.

I don't have my books, but FT violations are in 9.1

I think this is one thing I would like the FED to change. Like the crappy backcourt ruling this can go as well.

I know where the violations are found, but where is the current interpretation that says that after a timeout the violation carries over?

I do not see any such reference at this point in the casebook. They talk about what is a violation, but there is nothing that I can find that suggests a violation simply carries over after a timeout.

And I understand that we try to use years old interpretations on this site, but I was told by someone that sat on the NF Committee, that when an interpretation is removed from the casebook, there is a reason. In other words, the interpretation has changed or it no longer applies to the current rules.

I am still looking, I just do not find such a reference.

Peace

Read them all and it's not addressed. I have the study software which may be outdated. Will check actual casebook at lunch hour.

.

Pretty sure it's in the case book.

Or they don't want the case book to come in volumes.

Case book play 9.1.3SitC is the exact play.

The basic implication I was given that the issue does not apply any longer or they decided the interpretation was inappropriate or inconsistent with other rules. It is great to know there is an interpretation from year's past, but something like this current situation should be in some book, somewhere if they want consistency. If I were to try to debate with someone, I would not be able to find the information to prove the point.

Peace

Thank you. But why would this be under "Faking?"

Peace

Damned if I know.

Probably should have it's own section called "DELAYED DELAYED VIOLATION".:D

thank you. It's amazing what you can find when you rtfm. Heck, you might even find out that something else you knew for sure just isn't true.

Thanks JR........

The ruling makes sense to me. The violation "counts" depending on whether the FT is made. If we have to wait till after a time-out to know that, so be it. Enforce the penalty if the player misses.

No Casebook ??? No Problem ...
 

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.

That's what makes reading this forum so freaking valuable. Along with laughing at some responses what you learn is invaluable.

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

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

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

I think that may be the flaw in your thinking - the violation has <B>already occured</B> 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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

And that is my point.

Peace

This is twice today, but you're right. :D

From the perspective of game mgt...
 

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?

Again... From Game Mgmt perspective...
 

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?

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

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.

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..

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

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

After the ball is provided to the free thrower just put up your delay signal. If the thrower misses call the violation. Coach or player asks, you answer, #11 violated, citing the number of the player you remember violated. 99% of time that's it. The only way you get further question is if the violator had been substituted. Then and only then would you have to have the more lengthly description of when the violation occurred.

"But he is not in the game."

"He is not on the line."

"He did not move."

"What are you talking about?"

"But he came into the lane."

"You did what in a one point game?"

I could see all kinds of reasoning for there being a debate or confrontation. Now this is not likely to happen, but if it does, do not be surprised what coaches come up with. If there is a discussion over a block/charge call, what kind of debate are we going to have over an obscure rule?

Peace

I don't post very much, but I read the board frequently and I notice that whenever you don't like a rule, it is an "obscure" rule. Is that the definition of obscure?

Only rules 1 through 10 are obscure to JRutledge.

Another thing: So often, when you do call a lane violation, nobody knows who did it, or believes or admits it if you tell them they did it. In the case at hand, you call the violation, there's a good chance they wouldn't even know it took place before the timeout.

No, "obscure" is quite simple; it's a rule that you've never actually seen enforced.

Examples:
10 second free throw count
Goal tending on a free throw = Technical foul
Reaching across the plane during a throwin and fouling the thrower = intentional foul + warning
striking the ball with your fist
multiple foul

Most of these are never called because they hardly ever happen. Some (multiple fouls) happen occasionally but still never get called.

I've seen this one called quite a few times over the years. I've never seen any of the others.

I don't think Shades of Gray was looking for a definition of obscure. I think he was taking a jab at Rut. I've seen that quite a few times, too. :D

I know what he was doing.

I've never seen it called. I might have had a partner call the fist thing once, but I don't know it might have been out of bounds as well.