Buy your way out of violation?
 

Recently it was brought up on herethat calling time out doesnt get the opposite team out of a lane violation on a free throw....which got my partner thinking and asking me the question...

A is at the free throw line, ref gives ball to A, they have full control, dribble a couple times, then lose the ball. the 10 second time is not up and they have not left the semi-circle. Team As coach calls time out....does this buy them out of the violation?

I said no, but couldnt find it in the casebook. I looked under free throws and time outs. He said its in there, any help is appreciated~~~

Losing the ball is not a violation.

Player control is required in requesting a time-out.

Your partner is right. I'll look for the cite.

Would be the same as a backcourt scenario. You didn't pick up counts halfway. If coach thought shooter was approaching 10 seconds even though he was preparing to shoot would be the same as you describe.

Or "at the disposal" of a free thrower or shooter. By rule, a player could request a TO here, but by case play, I believe this is a violation as soon it escapes his reach.

He has total player control ........he's in the semi circle, can sit on it, do a hand stand, dribble it with two hands, it's his little world for 10 seconds as long as he stays 'home'

If it's a fumble when the ball is bounced to the free thrower, no violation, just reset. However, in the OP situation it is a violation once it escapes his/her reach.

I was assuming the ball left the semi-circle.

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.

Read the OP

And we are getting away from the original question can coach buy out of a violation.

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?~~~

That's a. Look at b.

That's it, thanks. I was looking at last year's case book, which is slightly different. Last year's said he just dropped it after having it, and both situations called for a re-set.

This year's says to call the violation if he dribbles it off his foot into the lane.

At first glance, I don't like this case play. However, all the defense would have to do to ensure the violation is grab the ball and toss it OOB; even if they had to step in the lane to intercept a pass from an offensive player in his lane space, a double violation on a free throw penalizes the offense rather than the defense.

Do not bend, fold, mutilate, or spindle.
 

*9.1.1 SITUATION: A1, at the free-throw line to attempt a free throw: (a) muffs the pass from the official and it rolls forward; or (b) while performing his/her habitual dribbles prior to the release, accidentally allows the ball to deflect off his/her foot into the lane. RULING: In (a), the official should sound the whistle to prevent any violations and then start the free throw procedure again. No freethrow violation should be called in this situation. In (b), a free-throw violation shall be called on A1. (9-1-3a, e)

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.

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! :p

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

In light of this new case play, I withdraw post #2 of this thread. :o

Done with your usual grace and elegance. :)

The NCAA ruling is different
 

From the case book:

A.R. 186. A1, at the free throw line to attempt a free throw, receives the ball from the official, who starts a silent count. While bouncing the ball, A1 strikes the ball on his/her knee or leg accidentally and the ball rolls toward the basket between the free throw lane lines.

RULING: The official shall sound the whistle at once, causing the ball to become dead. The official should caution the free thrower, place the ball at the disposal of A1 and start a new silent count. (Rule 9-1.2.a, 6-1.4.c,d and 6-5.1.d)

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.

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

Thank you!
 

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

I've had it happen three times in four days. Twice it was the same official. The first one was a violation, second was a bad pass and catch. The third was a sweet preshot dribble of the foot for a violation. Never had it happen in 10 plus years of calling before. Funny how things come up on the forum and then happen. Scary really!:eek:

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I took a different reasoning for the case play; it prevents a defender from having to grab it and toss it away. Just call the violation. I agree with your bewilderment on the previous case play.

Your reasoning actually makes more sense to me, though.

Checkmarks are good!

X's are bad.

NFC is reeeeaally bad. :eek:

But they beat the AFC in the Pro Bowl this year. :confused:

Oh, that's not the NFC that you meant. :D