If the attempt is made the game goes on, so there's no "actionless contest" to give a tech for.

If you aren't cheatin', you ain't tryin'. :D

If I'd already warned the coach, yes I'm calling the T.

If I hadn't warned him, play on.

A shouldn't be required to use their possession arrow to counteract B's illegal advantage.

In the words of Jesse Ventura "Win if you can, lose if you must, but always cheat!

Let's not also forget "It's only cheating if you get caught!"

So if I'm following properly, majority feel that:

- Player B violating leads to an actionless contest and that would be grounds for warning/administering a T.

- We have no concerns with player A missing shots intentionally because there is no clear rule stating you have to try to make shots.

- The penalty for violating early (team recieves additional shot) is not sufficient penalty if it happens intentionally or excessively.

I'm good with all those interpretations. Thought the way the officials dealth with it in game was fine just curious what others would do.

As a follow up is there a point where you would administer a T for a team for any of the following actions:

- Team fouling to garner possessions once the outcome is no longer in doubt (they are down 30-40 pts with a minute left or maybe they are up big and just want the ball back to go for a school record)

- Team down by a large margin and being pressed heavily simply starts inbounding the ball the other team.

- Player intentionally throwing ball out of bounds or committing a violation to get a whistle (wants a sub, avoiding live ball turnover, etc).

- PLayer throwing the ball out of bounds simply to run time off the clock before it contacts out of bounds or to change the position a team must inbounds from.

1) No, this wouldn't lead to an actionless contest as there are rules in place will take care of this (i.e. players will start to foul out).

2) No, this wouldn't lead to an actionless contest as the clock would continue to run.

3) No, nothing illegal with this. Ball goes to other team so no actionless contest.

4) No, nothing illegal with this. Ball goes to other team so no actionless contest.

I'm guessing the conversation with the coach is the same one I would have had, just one shot later than I would have done it.

A simple rule change might fix this "loophole." Extend the delayed violation to be ignored if the offense gets the rebound.

None of your follow up plays could lead to an interminable game.

Some consider the 2nd situation to be a travesty. I'd ask the coaches if they want to shorten the quarter.

But in theory the OP doesn't lead to interminable game either right, at mean at some point he makes a free throw. I don't like seeing any of these things go on just interested in how people handle them and what the rationale is. We accept some tactics that violate rules as within the confines of the spirit of the game and not others. Just curious as to what/how people dealt with.

-No, they may want more possessions because players who normally wouldn't play could get more chances.
-No, although I would call the game tighter against the team pressing while being up by a large margin late in the game (assuming I read you right).
-No, again it could be to get in a sub that doesn't play much.
-No. If you hadn't added the part about "simply..." then I could see a tech if it was done in a taunting or unsportsmanlike way. But I doubt it.

I had this situation a couple of years ago, but the coach started telling his team to do this in the FIRST HALF, and his team was only down about 10-12 points at the time he did that.

He was a first year coach, and his school had won multiple state championships under the prior regime, often running up the score on their opponents. This particular team was pretty weak, however, and was having trouble breaking the opponent's press. Game was in a tournament, on a neutral court, but there were plenty of parents from this school in attendance.

After they did it twice in a row, I blew my whistle and told him to knock it off or I'd forfeit the game right there.

If both teams execute as they intend, then yes, it would last forever because the clock can't run. That's the big difference.