Warning?

[Treeguy]

I had the same situation, team was on the other side of the dividing line. I was administrating the FT, yelled over there a couple times and was ignored. I administered the FT and called a lane violation. That got the coaches attention. He did not know the rule and started arguing the point that if he did not want anyone in the lane, he did not have to. He would not believe us.

I say administer the FT, lane violation first, T after that.

[PG_Ref]

Originally Posted by Treeguy

I had the same situation, team was on the other side of the dividing line. I was administrating the FT, yelled over there a couple times and was ignored. I administered the FT and called a lane violation. That got the coaches attention. He did not know the rule and started arguing the point that if he did not want anyone in the lane, he did not have to. He would not believe us.

I say administer the FT, lane violation first, T after that.

You would be incorrect ...


10.1.5 SITUATION C:

The ruling official has reported the foul and *proceeds to his/her proper position for the first of two free throws awarded to A1. B1 and B2 are: (a) huddling in the lane; or (b) two B players are not occupying the first two marked spaces next to the end line as required.
RULING: In (a), if the huddle delays the officials' administration, Team B is warned. The *warning is recorded by the scorer and reported to the head coach. If Team B had been previously warned for delay, a technical foul shall be charged. In (b), Team B will be directed to occupy the required spaces. If there is delay, a team technical foul shall be charged to Team B. (4-47)

[Treeguy]

Originally Posted by PG_Ref

You would be incorrect ...


10.1.5 SITUATION C:

The ruling official has reported the foul and *proceeds to his/her proper position for the first of two free throws awarded to A1. B1 and B2 are: (a) huddling in the lane; or (b) two B players are not occupying the first two marked spaces next to the end line as required.
RULING: In (a), if the huddle delays the officials' administration, Team B is warned. The *warning is recorded by the scorer and reported to the head coach. If Team B had been previously warned for delay, a technical foul shall be charged. In (b), Team B will be directed to occupy the required spaces. If there is delay, a team technical foul shall be charged to Team B. (4-47)

Actually, I think I was correct.

9.1.2 Situation A Talks about Team B huddling by the bench and the first two lanes are unoccupied.

RULING: The violation will result in A1 being given a substitute attempt. Team B will be assessed a technical foul if they delay further by not occupying the first marked spaces on each side of the lane before the ball becomes live for the substitute throw.

[APG]

Originally Posted by Treeguy

Actually, I think I was correct.

9.1.2 Situation A Talks about Team B huddling by the bench and the first two lanes are unoccupied.

RULING: The violation will result in A1 being given a substitute attempt. Team B will be assessed a technical foul if they delay further by not occupying the first marked spaces on each side of the lane before the ball becomes live for the substitute throw.

You were incorrect. 9.1.2 Situation A only applies after a timeout.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Treeguy

Actually, I think I was correct.

9.1.2 Situation A Talks about Team B huddling by the bench and the first two lanes are unoccupied.

RULING: The violation will result in A1 being given a substitute attempt. Team B will be assessed a technical foul if they delay further by not occupying the first marked spaces on each side of the lane before the ball becomes live for the substitute throw.

The difference, as already stated by Adam above, is that this is after a timeout. In the OP, there was no timeout.

[Treeguy]

I am corrected again.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Treeguy

I am corrected again.

That's what we're here for.

[Sharpshooternes]

Originally Posted by just another ref

That's what we're here for.

What if they make the First FT, thus no lane violation? Do you assess the technical foul after the second attempt? Or do you bounce the ball to the player, then whistle a violation. The FT shooter will shoot thier second FT with the lanes cleared, then 2 tech FTs and then ball at mid court?
Or what if they are in the lanes for the first after a timeout but then decide to huddle for the second outside the 3-point line?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Treeguy

I had the same situation, team was on the other side of the dividing line. I was administrating the FT, yelled over there a couple times and was ignored. I administered the FT and called a lane violation. That got the coaches attention. He did not know the rule and started arguing the point that if he did not want anyone in the lane, he did not have to. He would not believe us.

I say administer the FT, lane violation first, T after that.

You may say it, but the book says you're only right if you're coming out of a timeout.

[Treeguy]

Thanks for the correction, this only happen once to me.

[ODog]

It's odd that the actual rule (8-1-4c) states only that the first marked lane spaces SHALL be occupied by opponents of the free thrower.

I was beginning to think this was a myth perpetuated by absolutely everyone in our fraternity (including yours truly) until I read the case play you guys referenced (thanks). Only there does it say MUST.

Poorly worded rule, but very helpful discussion. Shall definitely contrasts with the "may" of 8-1-4d & e, but it's not as clear/resolute as "must" or "are required to."

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by ODog

It's odd that the actual rule (8-1-4c) states only that the first marked lane spaces SHALL be occupied by opponents of the free thrower.

I was beginning to think this was a myth perpetuated by absolutely everyone in our fraternity (including yours truly) until I read the case play you guys referenced (thanks). Only there does it say MUST.

Poorly worded rule, but very helpful discussion. Shall definitely contrasts with the "may" of 8-1-4d & e, but it's not as clear/resolute as "must" or "are required to."

Not it isn't. Shall means exactly that....it is a synonym of must.