Resumption of Play Issue

[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."