Delay of Game

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

NFHS Casebook Play 10.1.5 SITUATION C (b):
The calling official has reported the foul and proceeds to his/her proper position for the first of two free throws awarded to A1. Two B players are not occupying the first two marked lane spaces next to the end line as required.
RULING: Team B will be directed to occupy the required spaces. If there is a delay, a team technical foul is charged to team B (4-47).

Posted for anybody reading that might not be a basketball official and doesn't have the required books. It's that easy and simple.

JR:

I know that R1-S1-A5 is about Team Technical Fouls. AND, I will agree with you, hat under certain circumstances the penalty for the infraction in the OP is a team TF could be the correct penalty, BUT, R4-S47-A2 and R10-S1-A5d do not apply to the OP.

R4-S47-A2 and R10-S1-A5d were adopted in response to teams huddling in the free throw lane causing a delay in the administering of the free throw(s). This is not the case in the OP; the huddle in the OP was NOT in the free throw lane.

YES, there is a delay in the ball becoming live, but it is caused by player(s) intentionally NOT occupying the first lane space(s), or a HC instructing his player(s) to NOT occupying the first lane space(s). And depending upon the situation it could be a TF charged to the player(s), the HC, or to the team. AND, if it is charged to the team it is not because of an infraction of R4-S47-A2 and R10-S1-A5d.

MTD, Sr.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

JR:

I know that R1-S1-A5 is about Team Technical Fouls.

And that's all that you know. Your lack of understanding of a definitive rules reference is appalling...but hardly surprising. It's a waste of time discussing this any further with you.

[Daryl H. Long]

TEAM TECHNICAL.

My answer to MTD early this afternoon when he called me with this play was TEAM TECHNICAL but I did not have rule book handy. Tonight I looked it up.

Final answer: TEAM TECHNICAL.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Daryl H. Long

TEAM TECHNICAL.

My answer to MTD early this afternoon when he called me with this play was TEAM TECHNICAL but I did not have rule book handy. Tonight I looked it up.

Final answer: TEAM TECHNICAL.

Yabut... does he believe you?

Obviously not, Rev.

[Daryl H. Long]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Yabut... does he believe you?

Obviously not, Rev.

Oh, He believes I am Right. He told me so.

The problem is He does not believe he is Wrong.

[Camron Rust]

I think what Mark is saying is that there may be unsportsmanlike behavior that is connected with players not filling the lane spaces can be penalized with an individual T under the unsportsmanlike rules....and that he'd only address the greater infraction...no double jeopardy.

This philosophy is not unlike a player making contact with another player with his/her elbow....it could be rule just about anything---incidental, common/PC, intentional, or flagrant---depending on the magnitude and circumstances. We have case plays on that topic that suggest one or the other but they don't preclude other rulings as the situation may warrant.

However, I do agree that it should be a team T in nearly all cases, but could imagine a situation where a T on the coach might be deserved and applicable...after which there would be no need to have the spaces filled....thus no team T for not having them filled.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

However, I do agree that it should be a team T in nearly all cases, but could imagine a situation where a T on the coach might be deserved and applicable...after which there would be no need to have the spaces filled....thus no team T for not having them filled.

+1, and I think you're quite charitable.

You're looking for a fig leaf for MTD here, and I'm reluctant to snatch it away. But I think we're talking about 2 situations here: in the OP, the proper penalty is a team T.

In the situation you're envisioning, the coach earns his own T before the team T can be assessed -- fair enough, I can picture that, too. If I go over to roust them and he utters magic words, then he'll get his dessert early. And I agree, that would eliminate the need to assess a team T for not filling the lane spaces. But this really amounts to changing the subject, because it's no longer the OP.

Moreover, that's not how I read MTD: he's not saying that there are distinct situations, one where a team T is appropriate and one where a direct on the coach is. He's saying that it's official's judgment whether to assess a team T or a direct on the coach for one and the same act: not filling the lane spaces. And that still seems wrong to me.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

However, I do agree that it should be a team T in nearly all cases, but could imagine a situation where a T on the coach might be deserved and applicable...after which there would be no need to have the spaces filled....thus no team T for not having them filled.

"Coach, I gotta have 2 players occupy the first two spaces."

"I'm talking to my team. Get the hell out of my face."

"Never mind, coach."

[WHACK]