9.1.3 Delayed FT violation AFTER a TO
 

Just want to make sure I understand this play correctly. A1 shooting violation by B1 causes A2 to also violate (penalty is substitute FT if missed, ignore vioation by A2) A1 calls TO instead of shooting the ball. TO is granted. Players come back out and line up. Delayed violation carries over after the TO so even if no one violates during "this" FT, they will get a substitute throw if missed. Is that right or am I missing something?

That is correct.

Weirdly, it seems if, during the post-TO FT, A3 also steps in the lane early, that would also be ignored.

I would mention something to the coach when getting them out of the timeout. This situation is odd enough that they certainly aren't going to know the rule and will likely save a time bomb going off.

This is a waste of time. If he makes the free throw you got nothing to worry about and if he doesn't you can deal with it then.

Maybe to you. I'll take the preventative approach and save the potential for an unnecessary argument.

So you think the coach isn't going to want to have a debate about this and let you know how wrong you are when you bring it up before it happens? You aren't going to be saving yourself any argument.

Player misses the shot, call the delayed violation. If the coach has something to say at that point you can respond with 2 sentences and the conversation is over. "Coach, that is a delayed violation that carries over through the timeout. We are moving on."

Maybe, maybe not. But you're able to keep the situation in the huddle.

But if you take the approach "Coach, by rule, the violation is carried over. If the player misses their attempt, there will be another attempt awarded." Short, sweet, and simple.

JMO, but I prefer the heads-up approach rather than blind siding the coach from an obscure rule.

That eliminates all the fun!

I'd rather try and avoid the situation. The chances are a hell of a lot better that the coach gets mad if it's called, than the coach being mad that you took the time to explain the rule to him in the first place.

I'm on the side of saying something about it as we go into the timeout.

As I report the timeout, I'm going to indicate to the scorer and coaches that the FT violation that was pending will remain in effect for the FT once we resume.


Now, from a philosophical point of view, I'm not so sure I like the way the rule plays out. I'd be inclined to think that a better rule would result in the negation of the delayed violation if A want to call that timeout. The violation hasn't given the defender any advantage if there is no shot....which is the purpose of the rule to start with.

Here's another benefit of telling the HC - both of them - as the TO is being administered: It limits the debate by the HC who may be affected. (S)he probably isn't going to spend their entire TO complaining about the rule. If you tell them when the play happens and they complain you end up delaying the game.