Resumption of Play Issue
 

Let's use NFHS rules for this question. Team A is at the line for two free throws when a timeout is called. The 2nd horn sounds after the timeout is over. Team A is in position to shoot the free throws along with their two players in the second slots of the lane on both sides. However, Team B is not coming out of the huddle and is still on the sideline. Official bounces ball to shooter for 1st shot. In the meantime, the free throwers teammate, in the 2nd slot on the side of the lane, decides to move down to the lower spot since it's unoccupied and gets call for a violation. The officials don't allow the shot and give the ball to Team B. Question : Since the low block was not occupied by any member of Team B, this falls under resumption of play, doesn't it? If the free throw is missed, an alternate shot would be attempted. Furthermore, if Team B doesn't fill the low block for the alternate shot, at this point a Technical foul would be called, correct? Since no person was originally in the low block where Team B was suppose to be, would not the infraction by Team A's player for moving into that spot be ignored? Anyone have a rule # or case play reference. Why the officials did not drag two players from Team B down to the low block positions, I don't know. I would have strongly demanded that they be filled until they were.

The violation by A is not "ignored". Since B wasn't in the spots, it's a double violation.

Go to the second throw. If B is still not in the spots, it's a T.

What Bob said.

You won't find a specific case play dealing with this, but you can read the case plays on resumption of play and the case plays on lane violations and put the two together.

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.

Incorrect....resumption of play covers all players who are required to be in a specific location for FTs after a timeout.

You might want to check out 10.1.5 Situation A.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

Resumption Of Play Procedure ...
 

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)

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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."

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 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)

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

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.

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! :o

Could you call a T on team for not coming out on the floor after the 2nd horn? Could this be construed as a unsporting act and it was attempting to disrupt the FT attempt?

The resumption of play procedure covers this situation after a timeout. I think a T in this situation would be a stretch ... unless you have already gone through the RoP procedure and the behavior continued.

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.

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

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?

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.

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.

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?

RPP DOG warnings do not count toward the combo of the other 4 DOG warnings (4-47-1 thru 4) as far as I can remember.

Agreed, and 9.2.10a involves the defender committing a violation that would normally get the warning in the process. The RPP T does not involve that.

I don't think this is a warning.

Interesting.

We have always been told the opposite of that. The T is still for Delay of Game, and so it applies to any Delay situations.

Do you have a reference or Interp for that?

We were told that the RPP has the "warning" built into it...if they still don't come out, we assess the T and all warnings are off.

I'll get back with you late tonight or tomorrow morning on this one if someone else doesn't jump in first. We discussed it at our last association meeting.

Please do...we had the same discussion about 3 seasons ago when a crew had a team not come out of huddle and went through the RPP and assessed the T... later had a breaking the plane situation and went right to the T on that. State said they handled it correctly.

My answers are: Yes, it is a Team Technical for delaying the game & no it does not constitute a warning of any kind as this is not one of the four types of warnings listed.
This is the similar to the team not being ready to start a half and taking more than one minute or a kid not being in the FT semi-circle when the official is ready to administer (player tech). They have nothing to do with official team warnings for delay.

This last part certainly isn't true. The NFHS made a point a few years ago about each and every RPP situation being different and the entire process starting over with a first live ball before assessing a team T. Someone can surely find that ruling.

I think that's wrong, Rocky. The DOG warning and then T is used only is the 4 (or 5?) specific situations mentioned.

Using the RPP is not a warning for any of those. It's a way to play even if the team doesn't come back from a TO.


Depends on how loud the gym is. I don't "go over to the offended team's coach" but I do make sure the scorer and both coaches know what happened.

Ok. You are number three to say that. I wasn't really convinced when the situation happened in our association, but that's what we were told. So...I would love to have the citation needed to take back to my next association meeting.

4-47 Warning lists the 4 delays. Not occupying the bottom spots after a TO isn't one of them.

10-1-5 c, d, e, f, list the T's that are called after any warning.

10-1-5-b talks about a T "in these specific situations" (including the bottom two spots issue)

I pulled out my notes from the discussion, and these rule citations are the same ones given to support the position that I stated earlier. The reasoning given is that they are all listed together, and the RofP specifically calls the T a delay T.

So your counterpoint is the use of the word "specific" sets these apart?

I really want to get this right, but seems like the interp we were given is not right.

My counterpoint would be that the title of 4-47 is "Warning for Delay and the RPP violations are not listed in that rule. Then when you go to 10-1-5, "c", "d", "e", "f" correspond to rule 4-47 and specifically say "following any team warning for delay.

With RPP if a team doesn't comply you don't have a "warning for delay", you have a "violation for delay" which is followed by a Technical for further violation.

Makes sense!

Thanks BNR, Bob, and Nevada.

Glad to help. I would also add a bit of info to what Bob already provided for you to convince those in your group.
BY RULE any one of the four warnings for delay is reported to both coaches and recorded in the scorebook. The official doesn't have anything recorded in the scorebook for the first delay during a RPP, so there is no way that such can apply to these other four specific situations.

Excellent point!

(Always listen to Bob and never neglect Nevada)

Guess I'm chopped liver.:D

oops...
 

No-no. My bad. You da' man, BNR.