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]

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'.