Resumption of Play Issue

[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)

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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."

[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.

[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.

[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!