Delay of Game

[Judtech]

It won't suprise some that I am now confused.
If Team A is shooting, there is only the requirement that Team B have two players on the appropriate lane spaces. Team A is only required to have the shooter on the appropriate "lane space". So if Coach A wants to talk to his/her 4 other players that is legal. I am not aware of that rule changing but may be wrong.
The NFHS Case book section being referenced actually allows for a free throw to be attempted by A1 even if Team B is not occupying the appropriate spaces (10.1.5) I am not sure what the difference would be between the team coming out of a TO or just huddling, would you still follow the procedure?
Also, the case book cites team "T's" to be given when team members are huddling and delaying the game. Again, I am not sure what the difference would be when a coach calls his team over and delays. Personaly, I would be inclined to tell the coach I need the two players on the lane. If they continue to huddle, I would be inclined to T the coach b/c it is now the COACH causing the delay and not the players. I would have no problem writing this up if it was their second "T" and had to leave. Any game video would show that the coach was warned and had opportunity to break the huddle. It would be up to THEM to explain to their AD/Principal why they didnt' comply with the officials request. Especially, if they already HAD a "T"

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Judtech

The NFHS Case book section being referenced actually allows for a free throw to be attempted by A1 even if Team B is not occupying the appropriate spaces (10.1.5)

Yes, but only because you've called a T.

So you'd call the T, and then shoot the (original) FT's with the lane spaces empty because the ball will be dead afterward.

Then shoot the FT's for the T (lane still cleared) and put the ball in play accordingly.

[Judtech]

In Situation A that "T" only comes if the players are not in place in time for the substitute free throw

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Judtech

In Situation A that "T" only comes if the players are not in place in time for the substitute free throw

We're talking about 10.1.5 Situation C.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Let us look at 2009-10 NFHS R10-S1-A5; it states:

"A team shall not allow the game to develop into an actionless contest, this includes the following and similar acts:
a. When the clock is not running consuming a full minute through not being ready when it is time to start either half.
b. Delay the game by preventing the ball from being made promptly live or
from being put in play. See 7-5-1 and 8-1-2 for the resumption-of-play
procedure to use after a time-out or the intermission between quarters. The
procedure is used prior to charging a technical foul in these specific
situations.
c. Commit a violation of the throw-in boundary-line plane, as in 9-2-10, after any team warning for delay.
d. Contact with the free thrower or a huddle of two or more players in the lane by either team prior to a free throw following any team warning for delay.
e. Interfering with the ball following a goal after any team warning for delay.
f. Not having the court ready for play following any time-out after any team warning for delay."


Now let us look and 2009-10 NFHS Casebook Play 10.1.5 Situation C. This particular Casebook Play is divided into two (2) seperate situations (a) and (b), and the rule reference for the rulings in both (a) and (b) is NFHS R4-S47. R4-S47 is the correct rule reference for 10.1.5 Situation C(a) BUT it is NOT the correct rule reference for 10.1.5 Situation C(b) which is the the situation that is the play in the original post of this thread.


R10-S1-A5(c, d, e, and f) are the Rule 10 penalties for any further infractions of R4-S47 after the first one. The similar acts phrase of R10-S1-A5(b) could be possibly be applied to the OP but as I have stated in my second post (Post #13) of this thread, that there are two rules that better cover this situation and situations similar to it, and they are R10-S3-A5(A) and R10-S4-A1.

Failure of an individual(s) to occupy the first lane space(s) after being instructed to do so are infractions of the rules by an individual(s), except when part of the Resuming Play Procedure and the OP is not a RPP situation.

Applying the wrong rule to a situation in a Casebook Play is not something new by the NFHS. R4-47 does not apply to the OP anymore that it applies to 10.1.5 Situation C(b).

MTD, Sr.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

R10-S1-A5(c, d, e, and f) are the Rule 10 penalties for any further infractions of R4-S47 after the first one. The similar acts phrase of R10-S1-A5(b) could be possibly be applied to the OP but as I have stated in my second post (Post #13) of this thread, that there are two rules that better cover this situation and situations similar to it, and they are R10-S3-A5(A) and R10-S4-A1.

Failure of an individual(s) to occupy the first lane space(s) after being instructed to do so are infractions of the rules by an individual(s), except when part of the Resuming Play Procedure and the OP is not a RPP situation.

Applying the wrong rule to a situation in a Casebook Play is not something new by the NFHS. R4-47 does not apply to the OP anymore that it applies to 10.1.5 Situation C(b).

MTD, Sr.

I don't care how many 10,00 word essays you post to try and obfuscate the facts, Mark. It just ain't gonna work. Somewhere along the line, you have to come up with something out of the rule/case book that will back you up. And you can't do that because the case book completely contradicts your latest flight of fancy.

The numbering of case book plays corresponds to the rule being referenced. Casebook play 10-1-5SitC(b) relates to rule 10-1-5. Rule 10-1-5 is about TEAM technical fouls. It's that freaking simple.

The situation described in the original post is the EXACT same situation that is described in case book play 10-1-5SitC(b). It's also that freaking simple. And casebook play 10.1.5SitC(b) says that it's a team technical foul, NOT a freaking direct technical foul on the head coach.

And basically what you are saying is that we should completely ignore the rules and do what you advocate. Do you realize how truly ridiculous that concept is?

And I'm saying that anyone who is stoopid enough to do what you advocate deserves to be doing games at the Podunk, Ohio Middle School with you as their partner. They are at the absolute level of their competency.

[Adam]

If they haven't come out of the timeout huddle, use RPP which allows the FT to be administered without the two defenders on the lane.
If they have come out of the timeout, then the coach pulls them back to huddle, then RPP doesn't apply and you simply direct him to provide you with two players and issue a team T if he doesn't comply.
If there is no timeout involved at all, then once again you do not use RPP for this situation; tell coach you need two, then T if he doesn't comply.

[Altor]

Originally Posted by Judtech

It won't suprise some that I am now confused.
If Team A is shooting, there is only the requirement that Team B have two players on the appropriate lane spaces. Team A is only required to have the shooter on the appropriate "lane space". So if Coach A wants to talk to his/her 4 other players that is legal. I am not aware of that rule changing but may be wrong.

The OP said Team B was huddling, thus the need for the two players. (Don't worry, I didn't catch it at first either.)

[Judtech]

Yeah, I saw that. Subsequent posts had B or A shooting with that team huddling, that is where I was confused

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Judtech

Yeah, I saw that. Subsequent posts had B or A shooting with that team huddling, that is where I was confused

It was MTD Sr. that had A and B mixed up completely back in post #5. He went back and corrected it, but it lives on in my post #8 in my response to that post of his.

Mark is pretty damn good at confusing people. Gotta give him that.

[Judtech]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

It was MTD Sr. that had A and B mixed up completely back in post #5. He went back and corrected it, but it lives on in my post #8 in my response to that post of his.

Mark is pretty damn good at confusing people. Gotta give him that.

shows what I get for using one of your posts as a reference!

[Nevadaref]

MTD,
You are not correct on this. Now please stop.