Resumption of Play Issue

[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).

[billyu2]

I'm going to disagree. 9-1-2 makes it absolutely clear that the lane spaces must be properly occupied as in 8-1-4 which says during a free throw, the first spaces shall be occupied by opponents of the free thrower and no teammate of the free thrower can occupy these spaces. Essentially, the situation is the same as the casebook play where the defense and offense are in the wrong spaces 9.1.2: the defense is not in the first spaces and the offense is and should be ruled accordingly to that caseplay IMO.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by billyu2

I'm going to disagree. 9-1-2 makes it absolutely clear that the lane spaces must be properly occupied as in 8-1-4 which says during a free throw, the first spaces shall be occupied by opponents of the free thrower and no teammate of the free thrower can occupy these spaces. Essentially, the situation is the same as the casebook play where the defense and offense are in the wrong spaces 9.1.2: the defense is not in the first spaces and the offense is and should be ruled accordingly to that caseplay IMO.

The difference is that the referenced case play is a simultaneous violation....they were both in the wrong spot when the FT began.

If, in the RoP situation, the shooting team was in the wrong when the ball was put at the disposal of the shooter, I'd agree as both violations occur at that time.

However, in the OP, the teammate of the shooter changed spots after the shooter had the ball. The opponent already violated, then the teammate left his original spot and violated. That case is no different than stepping in early but it happened to be into a neighboring space. It could have been into the lane or up one space. It doesn't really matter where they go....they have violated by leaving the space they were in and not so much by going into the specific space reserved for the defense. Only the first violation (the defensive violation) is penalized.

[billyu2]

However, 8-1-4 says "During a free throw....(c) No teammate...shall occupy either of these two spaces." 9.1.2B provides the ruling.

[billyu2]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

The difference is that the referenced case play is a simultaneous violation....they were both in the wrong spot when the FT began.

If, in the RoP situation, the shooting team was in the wrong when the ball was put at the disposal of the shooter, I'd agree as both violations occur at that time.

However, in the OP, the teammate of the shooter changed spots after the shooter had the ball. The opponent already violated, then the teammate left his original spot and violated. That case is no different than stepping in early but it happened to be into a neighboring space. It could have been into the lane or up one space. It doesn't really matter where they go....they have violated by leaving the space they were in and not so much by going into the specific space reserved for the defense. Only the first violation (the defensive violation) is penalized.

I don't see why it matters that the teammate changed "after" the shooter had the ball. The teammate is now occupying a space he is not allowed to be in during a free throw which violates a basic separate free throw provision: (B shall occupy these spaces, A cannot) If the spaces are properly occupied, violations are ruled according to those specific situations such as: "if B enters first followed by A, A's violation is ignored."

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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 on both are penalized (and the referee is slapped).

Interesting. The RofP procedure is used in order to call a violation instead of assessing a T for the initial delay in these types of situations. The only thing I can find in the case book is 10.4.4 which talks about a sideline infraction being ignored during the first free throw. So if the RofP is telling us to push the violation, then I think you are right in this situation.

[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.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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


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.

all of the above posts went through my head when I initially responded (in fact, I changed my post a couple of times before hitting "submit"). I came down on the side of a double violation.

I think the "ignore the second" is in place because the committee thinks it's unreasonable for someone in a lane space NOT to react to someone else moving in early -- it's similar to the "only the fake is penalized" reasoning.

In this play, there's no reason for the offensive player to react. So, I'm penalizing him/her, too.

[billyu2]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

all of the above posts went through my head when I initially responded (in fact, I changed my post a couple of times before hitting "submit"). I came down on the side of a double violation.

I think the "ignore the second" is in place because the committee thinks it's unreasonable for someone in a lane space NOT to react to someone else moving in early -- it's similar to the "only the fake is penalized" reasoning.
In this play, there's no reason for the offensive player to react. So, I'm penalizing him/her, too.

I agree. In fact, if I remember, the rule use to be it was a double violation if B violated first followed by A. Isn't that correct?

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by billyu2

I agree. In fact, if I remember, the rule use to be it was a double violation if B violated first followed by A. Isn't that correct?

Correct. This changed about six seasons ago to the current ruling.