Buy your way out of violation?

[Adam]

Okay, case play 9.1.1 indicates the official should blow it dead and readminister even if the player "accidentally drops the ball." I'm still looking.

[hugheske44]

Yes in my original question, the ball is lost outside of the semi-circle, I realize they can do whatever they want with the ball in the circle.

The player has limited options on what to do once they lose the ball, go chase the ball--violation, let the 10 seconds expire--violation, call time out---violation???

My partner just said he may have seen it in Referee magazine, not the case book. I told him I cant find it specifically in the case book. Or possibly it couldve been in an older casebook since they do change them every so often?~~~

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by hugheske44

Yes in my original question, the ball is lost outside of the semi-circle, I realize they can do whatever they want with the ball in the circle.

The player has limited options on what to do once they lose the ball, go chase the ball--violation, let the 10 seconds expire--violation, call time out---violation???

My partner just said he may have seen it in Referee magazine, not the case book. I told him I cant find it specifically in the case book. Or possibly it couldve been in an older casebook since they do change them every so often?~~~

The official should not grant the time-out request as it was made at an improper time. Per 5-8-3 the ball must be dead, a player from the team must have control, or the ball must be at the disposal of the requesting team. After the free-thrower loses the ball none of those conditions exist.

As others have noted, there is a new casebook ruling this season which states that the free-thrower violates if he loses the ball in a manner such that he cannot regain control of it without leaving the semi-circle.

[Juulie Downs]

So the answer to the original question is, "No. The coach can't 'buy out' of a violation." Not even an arcane, little-understood violation such as this one.

So the appropriate sequence would be:

ref bounces ball to shooter
shooter catches, adjusts feet, dribbles, bounce it away
coach yells, "Time Out!!"
ref whistles, signals violation
ref turns to coach and asks, "Do you still want the TO?"

Is that correct?

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by Juulie Downs

So the answer to the original question is, "No. The coach can't 'buy out' of a violation." Not even an arcane, little-understood violation such as this one.

So the appropriate sequence would be:

ref bounces ball to shooter
shooter catches, adjusts feet, dribbles, bounce it away
coach yells, "Time Out!!"
ref whistles, signals violation
ref turns to coach and asks, "Do you still want the TO?"

Is that correct?

If I was being evaluated, and I used the procedure you did, I would expect a checkmark!

(Assuming you left out the part where the official voices how many shots are left, since that part of the situation was understood.)

[Juulie Downs]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

If I was being evaluated, and I used the procedure you did, I would expect a checkmark!

(Assuming you left out the part where the official voices how many shots are left, since that part of the situation was understood.)

checkmark, meaning bad? Or good? what's right or wrong about what I said?

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by Juulie Downs

checkmark, meaning bad? Or good? what's right or wrong about what I said?

Checkmarks are good!

X's are bad.

NFC is reeeeaally bad.

[Chess Ref]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

As others have noted, there is a new casebook ruling this season which states that the free-thrower violates if he loses the ball in a manner such that he cannot regain control of it without leaving the semi-circle.

How about if defender gives player the ball back ?

[Indianaref]

Originally Posted by Chess Ref

How about if defender gives player the ball back ?

A free-throw violation shall be called immediately when the free thrower looses/deflects the ball out of the semi circle.

[cardinalfan]

I've never had this happen, and I hope it doesn't anytime soon.

[hugheske44]

Im glad I found this board! Thanks again guys, always interesting discussions on here!~~~

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

The official should not grant the time-out request as it was made at an improper time. Per 5-8-3 the ball must be dead, a player from the team must have control, or the ball must be at the disposal of the requesting team. After the free-thrower loses the ball none of those conditions exist.

Really? I wasn't aware of a rule that said "at the disposal of" ends if the free-thrower loses control. Is this also true on a throw-in?

A1 has the ball for a throw-in, starts to pass and thinks twice. He fumbles it away, still OOB, but out of his 3 foot spot. Is it still at his disposal? Can they request a TO?

What about an endline throw-in?

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Really? I wasn't aware of a rule that said "at the disposal of" ends if the free-thrower loses control. Is this also true on a throw-in?

That is the basic point of the new case play ruling. If the FTer can no longer reach the ball, then it's clearly not at his disposal. If he sets it down within the semi-circle, then that's okay.

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

A1 has the ball for a throw-in, starts to pass and thinks twice. He fumbles it away, still OOB, but out of his 3 foot spot. Is it still at his disposal? Can they request a TO?

If the ball goes out of his three-foot spot, he can't go get it without violating, so it's no longer at his disposal. No disposal = no time-out.

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

What about an endline throw-in?

I have maintained that if the ball is somewhere that the player is allowed, then it's at his disposal. So anywhere behind the end line is ok in this case.

[Adam]

So this is just intuitive thinking on your part, not really a solid rule basis. I'm not knocking it, it makes sense, just trying to grasp it.

[Nevadaref]

It has always been clear to me. I found it strange that the case book used to say to stop the game and give the ball back to the FTer without any penalty, but that's what I did because that was what the ruling said to do.
Now I don't that anymore.

He lost it. It's no longer at his disposal. Seems simple and logical to me.