Resumption of Play Issue

[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.

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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

Right...and that's where I got the "first one caused the second one" thinking.

Anyway, I am taking back my change of thinking on this and going back to what I said earlier. Nevada and Bob reconvinced me. Penalize both of them as it is not a situation of both players being in marked lane spaces.

Can't believe I forgot Rule #3 of this forum: Always listen to Bob!

[Camron Rust]

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.

Again, that is written without the consideration of the RoP situation. It simply doesn't consider what may or should happen when the RoP is in effect.

In any case, the player in the second place who moves after the ball is live hasn't actually occupied the lower space, they've violated by leaving heir own space by breaking the plane of their lane space before they can ever get into the other lane space. And for a while, they're in both as they're moving. In other words, they've already violated before they get to the other space.

[Adam]

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.

I also see both sides, but I'm leaning the other way, since one violation happens first and they're both, essentially, FT lane violations. I'm not overly committed, however.

I've got no problem ignoring the second infraction since B is causing this whole mess anyway. Then again, A should know better, so penalizing them isn't going to give me any heart ache, either.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Adam

I also see both sides, but I'm leaning the other way, since one violation happens first and they're both, essentially, FT lane violations. I'm not overly committed, however.

I've got no problem ignoring the second infraction since B is causing this whole mess anyway. Then again, A should know better, so penalizing them isn't going to give me any heart ache, either.

A past ruling of some interest (perhaps) to this matter.
In this case, leaving one of the bottom spaces open is NOT a violation by the defense, but would still be a violation by the offense should one of its players step into there.
So according to this ruling, even if Team B players are not there, it is a violation for a Team A player to go into there.
Of course, in this particular case, there would not be a first violation for anyone to consider how it impacts the second one.

2003-04 NFHS BASKETBALL RULES INTERPRETATIONS

SITUATION 2: Team A started the game with seven team members in the scorebook. All team members foul out but one, A1. Team A is leading by eight points with 38 seconds left in the game with a chance to win. A1 fouls B2 with Team B in the bonus. A1 occupies one of the first marked lane spaces for the free throw, with no teammate to occupy the other required space. RULING: By rule, a team may continue to play with one player if that team has an opportunity to win the game. Accordingly, since Team A can only put one player in the required free-throw marked lane space, it cannot be penalized. Further, Team B may not occupy the first marked lane space left vacant by Team A. (3-1-1 Note, 8-1-3)

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

A past ruling of some interest (perhaps) to this matter.
In this case, leaving one of the bottom spaces open is NOT a violation by the defense, but would still be a violation by the offense should one of its players step into there.
So according to this ruling, even if Team B players are not there, it is a violation for a Team A player to go into there.
Of course, in this particular case, there would not be a first violation for anyone to consider how it impacts the second one.

2003-04 NFHS BASKETBALL RULES INTERPRETATIONS

SITUATION 2: Team A started the game with seven team members in the scorebook. All team members foul out but one, A1. Team A is leading by eight points with 38 seconds left in the game with a chance to win. A1 fouls B2 with Team B in the bonus. A1 occupies one of the first marked lane spaces for the free throw, with no teammate to occupy the other required space. RULING: By rule, a team may continue to play with one player if that team has an opportunity to win the game. Accordingly, since Team A can only put one player in the required free-throw marked lane space, it cannot be penalized. Further, Team B may not occupy the first marked lane space left vacant by Team A. (3-1-1 Note, 8-1-3)

Interesting interpretation, but I agree that the fact that it isn't a violation on teh defense here changes the play significantly.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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

That, 99% of the time, is the right answer to any post. "Going with Bob" is a pretty safe play.

[Sharpshooternes]

So if we get to the replacement throw and there isn't a Team B player in both lower spaces, is the tech a DOG team tech? Does this "count" as the warning as well for throw in boundary plane violations for the rest of the game or am I mixing rules?

[rockyroad]

Yes it is a T for DofG.

Yes it covers all other potential DofG as it serves as the warning also.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

Yes it is a T for DofG.

Yes it covers all other potential DofG as it serves as the warning also.

I must be missing something.

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by Adam

I must be missing something.

What are you missing?

10.1.5.A tells us it is a delay of game T for not occupying the required marked lane spaces following the RofP procedure.

9.2.10.A tells us that a DofG T also serves as the Warning recorded in the book and told to the HC.

[Sharpshooternes]

When you guys whistle a DOG, not necessarily for the OP but any DoG, what is your mechanic? Do you actually go over to the offending team's coach or just Holler at the scorer's table?