Resumption of Play Issue

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by BayStateRef

It is not a resumption of play because that rule covers only the free throw shooter. The rules require the defense to occupy the first two spaces ("shall") and the free throw must not be administered if they are not. If the coach refuses or delays, it is a technical foul.

You might want to check out 10.1.5 Situation A.

[BayStateRef]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

You might want to check out 10.1.5 Situation A.

Thanks. Not what I was taught at camp last year.

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by BayStateRef

Thanks. Not what I was taught at camp last year.

One of the things that makes this forum so much fun is getting to help each other out and argue about things.

[johnny d]

I am going to throw this out there for the hell of it. When team B commits the first violation, by not occupying the bottom spot, couldnt the second violation by team A be ignored since both violations involved players/non-players in marked lane spaces.

[Wellmer]

Johnny D, that's exactly what I was thinking. Isn't there an instance involving a free throw, where if a violation is committed the 2nd one is ignored? I could be way off base?

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by johnny d

I am going to throw this out there for the hell of it. When team B commits the first violation, by not occupying the bottom spot, couldnt the second violation by team A be ignored since both violations involved players/non-players in marked lane spaces.

I guess you could, but it would be wrong by rule. The only time we ignore a second violation is if the first one caused the second. This doesn't apply in this situation.

[johnny d]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

I guess you could, but it would be wrong by rule. The only time we ignore a second violation is if the first one caused the second. This doesn't apply in this situation.

b. When the first violation is by the opponent of the free-thrower’s team
and the try is successful, the goal shall count, and the violation shall be
disregarded. When the try is not successful, the ball shall become dead
when the free throw ends, and a substitute free throw shall be attempted by
the same free-thrower under the same conditions as those for the original
free throw.


Copied and pasted directly from the NCAA rule book. Maybe the NFHS wording is different, I dont recall exact phrasing they have. But the NCAA wording says nothing about the first violation causing the second violation, just the order they occur.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

I guess you could, but it would be wrong by rule. The only time we ignore a second violation is if the first one caused the second. This doesn't apply in this situation.

Actually, I think johnny has a point. As of just a few years ago, only the first violation of lane space restrictions is observed. The 2nd is always ignored.

Edited to add NFHS rule...

9-1 PENALTIES:
1. If the first or only violation is by the free thrower or a teammate, the ball becomes dead when the violation occurs and no point can be scored by that throw.
...
4. If there is a violation first by the free-thrower's opponent followed by the free thrower or a teammate:
a. If both offenders are in a marked lane-space, the second violation is ignored, as in penalty item (2).

The caveat here is that there is actually no one in that space but that is the location of the violation. All of the other terms involve violations with shooters or players away from the lane entering the restricted areas.

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Actually, I think johnny has a point. As of just a few years ago, only the first violation of lane space restrictions is observed. The 2nd is always ignored.

Edited to add NFHS rule...



The caveat here is that there is actually no one in that space but that is the location of the violation. All of the other terms involve violations with shooters or players away from the lane entering the restricted areas.

But they aren't both in marked lane spaces...so the "caveat" does not apply.

[Wellmer]

Would there not be a violation by the free throw shooter's opponent first since they are not in the low block where they are suppose to be? If this took place, I would have a fist out signaling a violation by the non shooting team.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

But they aren't both in marked lane spaces...so the "caveat" does not apply.

This is a case of the violation rules not being written to cover all the odd possibilities. These were clearly written without considering the effects of the resuming play procedure or power outages occurring with the ball in flight but before the ball hits the rim.

This is a lane space violation and the rules regarding lane spaces is what would apply. It is pretty clear that they only want the first of those is to be penalized. Assuming the teammate of the shooter is not already there when the ball is made live, the lack of a defender being in the first space occurs the moment the ball is live and all other lane space violations are ignored. If the teammate of the shooter is there at the time the ball is made live, then it is a simultaneous violation and both are penalized (and the referee is slapped).

[Nevadaref]

If both offenders are in a marked lane-space, the second violation is ignored, as in penalty item (2).

Originally Posted by rockyroad

But they aren't both in marked lane spaces...so the "caveat" does not apply.

While I can see the arguments for both sides in this, by the actual text of the rule, I have to side with Rocky. You can't apply a rule which clearly states, "if both offenders are in a marked lane-space..." when only one of the offenders is in a marked lane space. The fact that the defenders are not there, makes this rule inapplicable to the situation.

Therefore, what we have is more akin to a defender outside the 3pt line committing a violation by entering the 3pt area, then an offensive player in a marked lane space leaving his space too early. That is a double violation.

I'm going with Bob's original answer in post #2.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

You might want to check out 10.1.5 Situation A.

10.1.5 SITUATION A: A1 is fouled by B1 during an unsuccessful try and is
awarded two free throws. Team B requests and is granted a charged 60-second
time-out. Team B disregards the 15-second warning signal and the signal ending
the time-out and is still huddling with their coach at the end of the charged timeout.
RULING: The official shall administer the first free throw using the resumption-
of-play procedure and a violation occurs if it is missed. If two B players are
not in the required position when the official is ready to put the ball in play for the
substitute throw, a delay of game technical foul will be assessed. If the first
attempt is good, the same procedure is used for the second. (9-1-2; 10-1-5b)