Ruling

[fullor30]

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?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by fullor30

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 priviledge that would apply after a timeout.

Thoughts?

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

[JRutledge]

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

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

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

Bob, where is the reference?

Peace

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by fullor30

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. The logic is that the TO does not end the free throw attempt (even though the shooter will get a new ten (10) second count after the TO.

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 priviledge that would apply after a timeout.

Thoughts?

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.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Bob, where is the reference?

Peace

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

[deecee]

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

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

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

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

[fullor30]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

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

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 I have the study software which may be outdated.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

.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by fullor30

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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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.

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

[Jurassic Referee]

Case book play 9.1.3SitC is the exact play.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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

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

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Case book play 9.1.3SitC is the exact play.

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

Peace

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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

Damned if I know.

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