The case book are as much as part of the rules as the rule book is. There are many interpretations that are found in the case book that you would never get to by just reading the rule book. It's been that way for as long as I remember, which BTW, does not go back to 1963.

If the rule book addressed every scenario, it would be as thick as the NYC phone book. That's the purpose of the case book. No need to be frustrated by it. Simply read the rule book and study the case book.

In spite of going to the huddle to call them out, I've still had it happen once. The teams were so burried in the huddle that they tuned us out.


The horns were properly sounded, the teams were notified on both horns, whistles were blown, etc. At the last horn, my partner called them out. After no response, he went to one huddlen and I went to the other, both with no luck. We then went back out, layed on the whistle, and put the ball on the floor. After about 5 seconds, the defnese had made it to the lane (delayed violation). The offense came running in quickly after that. Double violation (under the rules at the time). We had given them probably and extra 30-40 seconds after the horn before we actually put the ball down.

It still is a double violation, isn't it? Since nobody was lined up on the lane, none of the violations falls under the new rule.

Chuck

What if the shooting team violates first in this sitch?

In another thread, I just wrote that JR should be listened to. I may have to take that back. Or possibly just make a caveat "unless he is just being silly!"

It is impossible for the shooting team to violate first under these conditions. The defense has violated as soon as the ball is placed at the disposal of the free thrower. See 9.1.2

Silly? How can 9.1.2 be relevant?That sitch only talks about a B violation! I'm talking about delayed violations on both teams,with A actually committing the first called violation.Take Cameron's original situation above,but let A violate before B,
Silly?

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Nov 14th, 2002 at 07:13 PM]

Silliness
 

It is germane because it tells us which team violated first--the defense for failing to occupy the first two lane spaces nearest the basket once the ball has been placed at the disposal of the free thrower.
The shooting team, still at their bench after the time-out, hasn't violated yet. They won't violate until they have a player return to the court and either enter a marked lane space or the free throw semi-circle.
Is that clear now? It is impossible for the shooting team to violate first if the defense does not come out for the free-throw after the time-out.
Suggesting otherwise is just plain silly!

Re: Silliness
 

What's the call if A requests a time out before either team had left their respective huddles in this sitch,but after the ball has been placed at A's disposal?Do you grant it?If you do,are both violations still pending?Or just B's?

Just the violation by B, if A is smart enough to call time-out before they violate.
After the time-out they have a 2-to-make-1 situation for that free throw. Casebook 9.1.4C is similar without the resuming-play procedure.

Re: Re: Silliness
 

The call is to your local rules interpreter from the cell phone at half-time!

This is way too complicated for me. I think I'll just make sure my team gets out of the huddle in time!

I have a question, though.

A1 is supposed to shoot the FT. Team B has assumed their positions along the FT line. Team A is still huddling, so the official places the ball on the floor, at the disposal of the shooter. BUT, regardless of what team A does, they will still be whistled for a FT violation, right? Do you give them the 10 seconds because the rules call for it? Does it make any difference if its 1-1, versus a 2-shot foul?

The reason I ask: In a 1-1 situation, it would look strange to put the ball at the disposal of the shooter, just to whistle a violation when he runs in late to shoot the FT. Don't get me wrong - I don't necessarily disagree with the procedure. Its just another one of the situations where ignorant howler monkeys like me would probably do Cheetah-like back flips because we didn't understand what was going on. Well, not me, because I understand the rule.

Team A could be granted a time out before A1 violates.
At the end of the timeout you start all over again.

Thanks, Dan_ref.

What happens if they don't have another TO? Just kiddin'.