Quote:
Originally Posted by Camron Rust
Perhaps you're right on that angle.
Let's explore a different angle...spirit and intent. What is the purpose of the FT lane restrictions? To allow the shooter to shoot the ball unhindered and to establish a point in time where both teams are allowed to enter so neither has an unfair or unintended advantage in rebounding the FT.
Since the team entering early expressly does not want the rebound but only wants to force the shooter (who has no obligation to make the shot) to reshoot so that the clock doesn't start, it seems they have not violated the spirit and intent of the rule.
Maybe we should just ignore what may at first appear to be an obvious infraction under the grounds that the supposed offended team wasn't actually offended.
|
That is a good attempt, but the every single point you've made can be used to justify calling something other than a common foul at the end of the game. An offensive player has the right to move unhindered by the defense, any illegal contact causes an unfair advantage, it is done on purpose to stop the clock, causing an unfair advantage not originally intended by rule, etc. However, we already have definitive direction that constantly fouling (doing something against the rules, on purpose no less), is still allowable. It is even called a strategy by the rules committee. Some of us may not agree it's what the rulesmakers meant to have happen (original spirit and intent), but the committee has decided it is still acceptable, because the illegal action still has a consequence.
I think the OP's play, while perhaps distasteful, is still not worthy of a penalty over and above the current listed penalty, by rule. If a case play or interp comes out that says otherwise, then we would have a more definitive direction.
Realistically though, when will this ever happen?