Double Free Throw Violation

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by CoachJW

If allowed to continue like this in perpetuity, Coach B is hoping that eventually A1 will shoot and either miss the basket entirely or make their free throw. On a miss, a double violation will result in going to the AP arrow and Team B will get the ball out of bounds, with the clock stopped, with a chance to win with a long pass. On a make, Team A takes a two-point lead, but Team B gets to make the long inbounds pass. The reason Team A wants to miss the free throw is the same reason Team B wants them to make it. The root of this problem is that the incentives and consequences of the free throw and the violations are misaligned. Should an officiating crew allow it to continue or intervene? If an official intervenes, is there a rule that could be invoked?

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Call a T on Team B (after a discussion with them). This has been discussed before.

Not fully disagreeing because I don't have a better answer, but how about a citation for which technical foul to charge for deliberate intentional free throw violations?

When has this been discussed before, I searched but can't find it, I'm probably not using the correct key words?

Does it matter if the official has a date immediately after the game with a hot single Mom?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

... how about a citation for which technical foul to charge for deliberate intentional free throw violations?

10-2-B: A team must not: Allow the game to develop into an actionless contest, this includes the following and similar acts: Delay the game by preventing the ball from being made promptly live or from being put in play.

10-4-5: A player must not: Delay the game by acts such as: Preventing the ball from being made live promptly or from being put in play.

In regard to both rules above, the ball is not prevented from being made promptly live (becomes live at disposal).

I'm not sure how the NFHS defines being promptly "put in play" regarding this specific situation, although it "could" be relevant.

Would free throws being attempted during a live ball be considered "actionless"?

10-4-6: A player must not: Commit an unsporting foul. This includes, but is not limited to, acts or conduct such as …

"Not limited to ...". Could it be this above?

Note that there isn't a "team" technical version of this rule, only a "player" technical version.

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Call a T on Team B

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

[I]10-2-B: A team must not: Allow the game to develop into an actionless contest, this includes the following and similar acts: Delay the game by preventing the ball from being made promptly live or from being put in play.

...

We get paid the big bucks to use our judgment in an intelligent way. If an official cannot figure out that purposeful, repeated violations fall into the category of allowing the game to develop into an action-less contest, I'm not going to waste my efforts on them.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

... purposeful, repeated violations fall into the category of allowing the game to develop into an action-less contest.

One of my three given choices. Raymond's fits the situation best, especially since two other choices are only charged to individual players rather than a team.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Possibilities: 10-2-B: A team must not: Allow the game to develop into an actionless contest, this includes the following and similar acts: Delay the game by preventing the ball from being made promptly live or from being put in play.10-4-5: A player must not: Delay the game by acts such as: Preventing the ball from being made live promptly or from being put in play. 10-4-6: A player must not: Commit an unsporting foul. This includes, but is not limited to, acts or conduct such as …

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Not fully disagreeing because I don't have a better answer ...

I don't have any answer that get the officials out of Dodge before sunrise.