Team A calls to prior to A1's free throws. After horn sounds, Team B is ready while Team A reamins with coach at the side line. Referee uses resuming of play procedure. A1 then steps into the free throw semi circle. Referee call a violation on A1. I believe this is the correct call. My buddy says it's a Technical. Who's right?

Jeff, if the delay occurs following a TO or intermission, the official should use the resumption of play procedure. If there is no TO or intermission, but the free thrower delays, it would be a technical foul.

So in your case, the official (and you :) ) was correct.

I'm feeling rather weird this morning and, as I was reading the situation above, this bizarre picture popped into my head:

What if, TO, team A delays, resumption of play procedure...

Now the ball is on the floor in the circle, correct? and trail is counting, correct? (BTW, is it 10 sec, or 5 sec?), Okay, what if B2 now steps into the lane early? Has A1 already violated? No, if she had, the ball would have been called dead already. So do we have a delayed violation by B2, and if A1 doesn't step into the circle then the shot is "missed" (since A1 didn't shoot!) and A1 gets a substitute shot? Or what?

Maybe I just need to find my meds and get back to vacuuming...

Juulie,you have a lane violation by B followed by a line violation by A.Double violation->AP.

Btw,count by trail is 10 seconds i.e.alloted time for FT shooter to shoot.

No more coffee from rainmaker!

Why is it a line violation by A, if she doesn't ever step into the circle?

Ball is at his disposal...so 10 seconds to attempt the free throw. A1 will violate regardless.

Jeff the Ref, My advice is to NOT let this happen. Go get to team out of the huddle.

Yup...preventive officiating!

This came up at one of our meetings. Could someone please tell me why it is a violation to enter the free throw semi-circle if this is the correct player who is supposed to be shooting.
9-1-7 tells us it is a violation to cross the free throw line, but says nothing about entering the semi-circle.
10-3-7c clearly makes an exception to the T for delay when resuming-play procedure is in effect.
I just can't find anywhere in the rules where it is a violation to be late after a TO and come running in and take the merited free throw. I am talking only about the free throw shooter, not anyone coming in to a marked lane space.
Rules cite anyone?

[Edited by nevadaref on Nov 15th, 2002 at 04:26 AM]

I am a new guy, so if I am wrong, please be easy.

Actually, rule 9-1-7 does state that the thrower can't break the vertical plane of the free-throw line or the free-throw semicircle line.

There is a situation in the casebook on rule 9-1-7 for this that says specifically that this is a violation:

"After the ball has been placed at the disposal of the free thrower, he/she is not permitted to leave or enter the free-throw semicircle without violating, until restrictions have ended."

Or, he or his team calls timeout.

Please correct me if I am wrong.

John

Thanks JT.
This casebook play clearly says he is not allowed to enter. Which is what I was seeking.
Although, how the rules committee got this interpretation, I don't know, since the rule book doesn't mention entering only leaving.
But hey, I'll go with it.
PS Welcome to the board and also we cite rules with dashes 9-1-7 and casebook plays with periods 9.1.7 as they are written in the books. This will prevent confusion when others read your posts.

Mmmmmm....not quite. A could be granted a time out before
A1 enters the semicircle to get the ball.

Just the way that they group them,juulie.I shouldn't have been lazy and looked up the proper rule citation for you.Take a look at R9-1Penalty4b.Second violation is by the FT shooter for either taking more than 10 seconds to shoot FT,or for entering semi-circle illegally after ball placed on floor.

Hey JR and Mark T. DeNucci,
You guys have been around to see these rules evolve. Can you shed some light on the entering the free throw semi-circle interpretation in the casebook? 9.1.7
Was there ever a comment in past in either the casebook, rule book, or handbook about this?
I have been officiating HS ball for 7 years now, and am frustrated with many of the casebook interpretations because they often are not what the rules book says. I wish the rules committee would also change the wording of rules book if they decide that they want a certain casebook interpretation.
Thanks.
PS I have taken the attitude of an attorney with regard to this. I associate the written law with the rules book and the case law decisions of the judges are analogous to the casebook plays.
Now in the legal field both written code and case decisions have the force of law, so I give the same power to both the rules book and the casebook when I am officiating. However, in the legal field, the decisions of certain cases are often overturned and it can be argued that a court misinterpreted the law and decided wrongly. Laws are also changed, but usually less frequently than cases are overturned. Hence, I sometimes argue with the casebook, if it is not consistent with the rules book.

[Edited by nevadaref on Nov 14th, 2002 at 01:58 PM]