Warning?

[ODog]

Had this happen today in a high school game. Two-shot foul called on Team B. Right after the foul is reported, B coach calls all of his players over to talk to them. Before any of them get even two steps away, I say, "We'll still need two, Coach. Leave us two."

I am the Lead about to administer A's free throws. Partner picks up my appeal to the coach to have two players come and fill the required spots in the lane. No response. We both look at each other and roll our eyes. Partner ends up having to approach huddle before two B players peeled off and came down.

It's not one of the four warnings for delay in 4-47 (which was why we didn't hit them with one), so how have some of you handled this situation, if ever?

Thanks!

[Nevadaref]

Look in your case book. You will find a ruling stating to do what you did--direct two defending players to fill the required lane spaces and if there is a delay in doing so, then you are to assess a team technical foul for delaying the game.

[Camron Rust]

This brings up a good point. Why is this not a delay of game situation. Is it really any different than players huddling in the lane. Both actions have the same effect and are essentially the same act. Perhaps the rule should be changed to make it a DoG situation.

For that matter, why are defenders even required to be there. I can't see any purpose for it...there is no problem that it creates if the defense wants to not go for a possible rebound.

[grunewar]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Is it really any different than players huddling in the lane.

I think it has the potential to be much worse. You can usually clear players up in a huddle in a real hurry. At the bench, there are coaches involved and they could be a good distance away.

[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)

[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.