[M&M Guy]

Just received an answer back from Debbie Williamson at the NCAA, but have not heard back from NFHS. If I hear back from them, I will post their answer as well.

My e-mail:
Good morning Debbie,

I would like to present a play that has provoked discussion between officials in meetings and on-line, and would like your interpretation on how to rule:

Score tied, A-1 is fouled with .5 seconds left, and is awarded 2 FT's. A-1 makes the first, to put team A up by 1. TO is called. After the TO, teams are properly lined up for the second FT attempt by A-1. As A-1 is shooting, multiple players from team B step into the lane early and violate, and the FT is missed. A replacement FT is awarded to A-1, and the same violation and missed FT happens again. It becomes clear A is purposely missing the FT to make B rebound the ball and have to go the length of the court with only .5 seconds left, and B is purposely violating to get A to make the FT so B can run an inbound play. What should the official rule? There is a slight difference in how the NCAA rules are written vs. NFHS, so I will ask you from the NCAA perspective.

There is a group of officials that say they would warn team B, then issue a T if they continue to violate. The reasons vary, but the main rules cited are NCAA 10-2-5 (A team shall not delay the game, when the clock is not running, by...), and NFHS 10-1-5 (...Allow the game to develop into an actionless contest...). It would seem intuitive that a team should not be allowed to keep purposely violating, keeping the clock from starting, and thus preventing the game from continuing.

Another group of officials say there is no rule basis for issuing either a warning or T, and that the officials have no choice but to continue to penalize the violation, and continue to award the substitute FT, no matter how many times it happens. The same basic rules are cited - NCAA 10-2-5(b.) and NFHS 10-1-5(b). NCAA 10-2-5(b) states: "After a team warning has been issued, repeatedly delaying the game by preventing the ball from being promptly put into play, such as delaying the administration of a throw-in or free throw by engaging in a team huddle anywhere on the playing court." In the play above, the administration of the FT was not delayed, and the ball was put into play and became live. There is no specific mention of adding an additional penalty for repeated violations, over and above the prescribed penalty for the violation itself.

While the NCAA rule seems clear that there is no basis for penalizing a team for multiple violations once the ball becomes live, the NFHS rule (10-1-5) seems less clear when it states: "Allow the game to develop into an actionless contest, this includes the following and similar acts:...", however, (b) states "Delay the game by preventing the ball from being made promptly live or from being put into play." Points a and c-f involve the specific actions that trigger specific delay of game warnings. Again, the play does not prevent the ball from becoming live or put into play, but the wording "actionless" and "...similar acts..." seem to allow the possibility of penalizing the act to avoid an endless loop of violations and missed FT's with the clock never starting.

While this is a play that may only rarely happen, it has apparently been taught in coach's clinics, so it may come up. Of course, due to the nature of the play, it will come up in a very important part of a close game, so it's important officials know how to rule on this situation, and the rule basis behind it.

Thanks for your help on this.


Her answer:
Thanks for your email and your well written scenario. You are correct that NCAA rules have no provision to warn for too many violations or for too many missed free throws. Rule 10-2.5 cannot be applied to your play. I don't see any of our current rules being able to be applied unless we stretch 10-2.8.d simply because they could be considered to be preventing continuous play. That's really all I have to offer you. As with any other rule, when it gets to the point that the current rule is being abused, the committee will have to address it and create a new rule to prevent the very thing we both know could happen now. Thanks again for writing.

Debbie

Debbie Williamson
NCAA Women's Basketball Secretary-Rules Editor