Resumption of Play Issue

[Wellmer]

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.

[bob jenkins]

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.

[rockyroad]

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.

[BayStateRef]

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.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BayStateRef

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.

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by BayStateRef

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.

You might want to check out 10.1.5 Situation A.

[BayStateRef]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

You might want to check out 10.1.5 Situation A.

Thanks. Not what I was taught at camp last year.

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by BayStateRef

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.

[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.

[Wellmer]

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?

[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.