Am I right that the rules provide no remedy for a lane violation by the free throw defenders OTHER than a new free throw try after a miss? Even for repeated violations?

My 7th grade team leads by 2, final seconds. Opponent has the ball, attacking our basket. With under two seconds left, we're called for a shooting foul -- two shots. Assume the opponent misses the first shot. Now, expecting that he will also attempt to miss the second, could I call timeout and instruct my rebounders to ensure good position by stepping in the lane a half count ahead of when they should?

After looking at NCAA 9.2, I think why not? If we're called for a lane violation, well -- no harm on a make: our ball, ahead by 1. On a miss, nothing happens except the shooter is forced to shoot again, risking another unintended make. Our players can repeat the violation indefinitely until either (1) it isn't called and (presumably) we use our advantage to rebound the miss or (2) the shooter finally makes the shot.

(In reality, we played by the rules, didn't jump in early, the shooter missed the second shot, the offense rebounded and scored, forced overtime, and won the game. In grim hindsight I am wondering whether I missed an opportunity.)

You play NCAA rules for 7th grade girls?

Coach,there's a rule in the book that says an official can call a technical foul on a team if that team allows the game to develop into an "actionless" contest. If you tried to pull the procedure that you described above, that's exactly the rule that I'd invoke. The rule was put in to stop teams from making a travesty of the game, which pretty well describes deliberate, continual violations. The T means that the other team is gonna get another 2 foul shots, plus the ball out of bounds- under high school rules. I don't think that it is a very good idea for you to go ahead with this one.

This is off the subject, but I'm just throwing it in for your general edification. You don't attack your opponent's basket, you score in your own basket. This is different from football, just for the record.

Coach, this makes no sense. You're going to keep giving your opponent free throws until he makes one or in the worst case you're going to run into a crusty old b@stard like JR here who will get bored & T you up. Why is this a good strategy?

(1) We (and these are 7th grade boys, in fact) play under NFHS rules as far as I know. I have the NCAA rulebook at hand because you can actually buy that one in a store.

(2) I don't see the "actionless contest" language in the technical foul rules (again, NCAA) that I have. I'd appreciate a citation.

(3) Sorry if the imprecise "football" terminology confuses anyone. If I post again I'll try to upgrade the quality of my writing.

Awwww geeze, gotta deduct some more points for this. :p

This situation, or one very similar, has been discussed here before. This, I think, is covered under Intent and Purpose of the Rules. "A player or a team should not be permitted an advantage which is not intended by a rule."
I think it is fair to say that this was not the purpose of the lane violation rule. Therefore, if it is apparent that a team is violating to achieve the purpose mentioned here, they should be warned, and, if necessary, assessed a technical foul.

Hello?!?!? Dan, put down that rather distracting little toy and pay attention11 I'll go over it vveeerrrrrryyyyy slooowwwwwly. Jay's team is two points ahead, the opponent already missed the first one. If they make the second one, Jay's team gets possession, still maintaining the lead, and can inbound, hold the ball during the last two seconds, and thus prevent what ended up happening. Get it, Dan? It's winning versus losing. What a concept...

You don't deduct points when Padgett gets "detail-oriented". Oh, wait, do you?!?

Oh. Never mind. I was too busy with that little (little?!) toy to notice jay was up.

Coach, sounds like a good idea, plus/minus crusty old b@stards.

(BTW...points back plus more. Nice. Very, very nice.)

Wow, you mean, I'm getting the hang of it? Cool!

The rain in Spain falls mainly on the plain...

http://www.aps.k12.co.us/sidecrk/Musical%20Notes.JPG

NFHS Rule 10-1-5- Team Technical- "A team shall not allow the game to develop into an actionless contest".

Or maybe a crusty old b@stard of a ref could haul this one out: Rule 5-4-1-Forfeiture- "The refereee may also forfeit a game if any player,team member,bench personnel or coach ...repeatedly commits technical foul infractions or other acts which make a travesty of the game". As I said before,I think that it would be quite easy to call repeated, deliberate violations by a team an act which makes a travesty of the game.

Don't take the chance, Coach. Imo, you'd be better off spending your time teaching your players to box out rather than looking for loopholes in the rules.

JR gave the FED reference.

For NCAA use 10-3.19

A very similar situation happended this past season in the Florida 6-A boys state championship game.

I don't remember the exact situation, but the team that was shooting the free throws wanted to intentionally miss the free-throw. The other team obviously wanted them to make the shot (I think it had to do with time remaining on the clock, and being able to make a pass without the clock running).

The defending team would step into the lane (2 or three players at a time) to draw the lane violation. They did this probably 6 times before the kid "accidently" made the free throw.

I've wondered what could be done in a similar situation. There's nothing in the rule book that directly addresses this type of delay tactic. You can go 10-1-5 (or 10-3.19) I suppose you could also go with old standby 2-3.

How would you adminster this warning, penalty? Warn the players, mark the warning in the book, tell the coach, then "T" on the next one. That way there's no doubt why you've called what you've called -- or is there a better way?

Works for me!

You might also want to notice which way the possession arrow is pointing when you invoke your strategy because a wily coach on the opposing bench could instruct his free-thrower to shoot an airball after your team violates, which would cause a double-violation and result in a jump ball. Your strategy may backfire and simply give them the ball!

Excellent point, Nevada. My partner and I were discussing this situation at length yesterday. We decided that if this ever happened, we warn BOTH coaches that they will be getting a technical if their teams continued on in the "actionless contest". We believe this takes care of the situation in this manner:

a.) if A1 shoots an airball AND team B violates, we go AP;
b.) if A1 misses on purpose (and we as officials can tell by the way the ball is shot) AND team B rebounds, game over;
c.) if A1 misses on purpose (and we as officials can tell by the way the ball is shot) AND team A rebounds, technical on Team A;
d.) if A1 misses (but it appears A1 really tried to make the shot) AND team B does not violate and either team B or team A rebounds, play on;
e.) if A1 makes it, -----------> RELIEF!!

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "miss", but as long as the ball hits the ring (or enters the basket), A has done nothing wrong. You should play on in both these situations.

By miss, I mean we'll have to make a judgment on the intent. If it looks legitimate, go with it. If it doesn't look legitimate, it probably isn't.

All this being said, I've been put in this position since the game is headed toward the "actionless contest" state. I'm not talking about a game that hasn't reached this state!

Look, I don't mean to be piling on here but how do you "judge" the "intent" of a miss?

By rule all A1 has to do is put the ball through the hole or hit the ring on the FT. Regardless of the "state" of the game or the "intent" of the FT'er.

If the throw hits the rim, A has met the requirements and isn't continuing an "actionless contest."

See, for example, 5.9.3

I pointed out that I was continuing on with the original post...that the game was in (or entering) an "actionless" state by measures taken by the players who have been directed by the two coaches. Please assume I have already warned coach A and coach B since A1 was continually heaving the ball off the rim and team B was continually and purposely committing a lane violation...thereby, sending the game into an actionless state.

If A1 heaves the ball off the rim by the direction of team A coach, he/she is choosing to continue to promote an actionless contest. Now, I did say the player can miss...he/she just can't throw it one-handed at 50 MPH off the rim by direct instruction from his/her coach...and did I mention that I'm standing right there as said coach tells the player this? I think that can be assumed too.

AGAIN, assume I have already warned both coaches about their (and their team's) antics!

I pointed out that I was continuing on with the original post...that the game was in (or entering) an "actionless" state by measures taken by the players who have been directed by the two coaches. Please assume I have already warned coach A and coach B since A1 was continually heaving the ball off the rim and team B was continually and purposely committing a lane violation...thereby, sending the game into an actionless state. [/B][/QUOTE]The major difference is that team B was committing repeated violations; team A is <b>not</b> committing a violation of any type. Missing a foul shot is <b>not</b> a violation. I really don't think that you can warn team A for anything in this particular case. They haven't violated any section of the rules, whereas team B is repeatedly doing so.

Indy, please quote the rule that says that A1 can't throw it off the rim. There's nothing in the ulebook that says that he can't.

JR,

You call it your way, I'll call it mine. (And I'm sure that'll draw some kind of "making up your own rules" comment.) If you call it your way, just be sure to bring a chair and your snap-on-toiletry-belt so you can shave several times over the course of the several weeks. That way you can keep looking good since you'll be in that gym officiating that game for a long time...even if you will be helping BOTH coaches make a mockery of the game!

Oh, and bring a TV and TV stand with an outside link so your wife can sattelite in and keep you up to date on the happenings of your family. If we're going to split hairs here, see the rules as only black & white and not use our common sense, we might as well go all the way!

Wow, Indy, aren't you overreacting a little here? JR isn't saying don't call anything, and he's not saying the rules are all black and white. He's saying some of the rules are very well-defined and do not take judgement. You call or no-call those how they are written. Why is it common sense to make up a rule that lets you warn team A for doing what is perfectly legal? If you want to bring the mockery to an end, deal with team B, who ARE after all, the ones who are making a mockery. Warn team B, then call them for it if they do it again. That avoids the "mockery" thing, and obviates the need for the shaving kit. NBD. Sheez...

Indy, I don't want to get into any kind of a flame war with you, or anyone else over this. However, I do have the right to post my legitimate concerns,if I have some. Having someone recommending officials to do something that CANNOT be backed up in any way by the present rules is a legitimate concern, imo.

Don't take it personal if I disagree with you. It certainly isn't meant to be.

JR,

Sorry if it sounded like I was starting to flame. It truly wasn't meant to sound like that. I meant to be sarcastic and funny...so I apologize for anyone who may me taking it any differently.

Evidently, you and I (and at least Juulie) disagree here...as did my main partner and I initially. After discussing it at length...(and I did use the same analogy on him as I posted here--to which he thought was funny), we came to the resolution I posted earlier. And, I'll stick by it. I like it...and in my opinion, not only does it make good common sense, but it also is supported by the rulebook.

I simply can't accept that the intent of A's actions aren't promoting B's violation. Team A is gaining an advantage if an official ONLY penalizes team B. Again, this is after these coaches have publicly instructed each team to act as they are.

If I'm not making myself understood yet, I may never be understood!

I understand you completely. You are saying if you devine that A1's INTENT on the FT is less than up to your standards you will penalize team A.

There is no rule to permit you to do this. As long as A1 hits the rim or puts the ball in the hole while not violatng any of the other FT provisions that are clearly spelled out he has done nothing wrong.

That's all.

I'm with Dan on this one. What A is doing is not illegal, so it can't be penalized regardless of the intent. You still haven't answered why you would penalize both A and B when penalizing B only would solve the problem?

No, A is NOT promoting an actionless contest. The FT ends, and play continues -- what's "actionless" about that.

Case 5.9.3 gives a specific example where A purposely misses the FT and hits the rim. The play is legal.

I like it...and in my opinion, not only does it make good common sense, but it also is supported by the rulebook.

[/B][/QUOTE]That was the point that I was trying to make back to you,Indy. I honestly don't think that giving team A a warning is supported by rule. I can't think of a rule that would allow us to warn team A when they are not violating any provision of the rules(again,that I can think of anyway). Team B- yes, because they are deliberately and repeatedly violating a rule.But I don't know what rule team A is violating by missing a foul shot.

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Oct 23rd, 2003 at 01:18 PM]

I can actually support Indy's position with the rules (emphasis mine)...

9-1-3: He/she shall throw within 10 seconds, and in such a way that the ball enters the basket or <b>touches the ring before the free throw ends.</b>

4-20-3: The free throw ends when the try is successful, <b>when it is certain the try will not be successful</b>, when the ball touches the floor or any player, or when the ball becomes dead.


So, according to these two rule, when the official determines that it will not be successful and it has not yet hit the rim, it is a violation. When can the official be certain that it will not be successful? If the ball is passing below the front of the rim then hits the back iron from the bottom, I'd bet that just about anyone can tell well before it gets there. Even when it is going towards the front but below the level of the ring, it is prettly obvious.

Sooooo....A1, who couldn't put the ball into the Atlantic Ocean if he was falling off the Titanic, is at the line & puts up an obvious miss. You're at trail, see there's no way in hell it's going in & blow the whistle for a violation.

Yeah, sure ya do... :rolleyes:

(...and as you blow the whistle the ball slams off the backboard and goes in. Go directly to 7th grade girls games. If you pass GO do not collect $200.)

Yup,and in both cases,you would penalize the violation by the shooting team. And in both cases, that penalty would not allow that team to again commit that <b>same</b> violation. That's the difference in the two cases. Team A cannot possibly turn this into an actionless contest because they <b>cannot</b> repeat their violation,once or continually. Even if they violate on a following FT, that is a completely separate violation and can't possibly be considered as being repeatable because it is a different violation.

In other words, these rule citations does not support Indy's position because A can <b>never</b> repeat their violation,and thus turn the game into a farce.

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Oct 23rd, 2003 at 10:04 PM]

And Indy wtill hasn't answered the question, "Why not just T up team B, and get it over with?"

Where is Brother Occam when you need him?
 

"A player or team should not be permitted an advantage which is not intended by a rule."

If it looks like someone is going in early on purpose, call the violation once and admonish the individual that, if it happens again, it will be a T for unsportsmanlike contact, making a travesty of the game. This remedy is known to work.

Re: Where is Brother Occam when you need him?
 

Occam - he was the original keep-it-simple-stupid guy, right?

Or did he make shaving products?

I dunno....

Because BOTH teams, by each one's direct actions, are trying to gain an advantage that is against the intent of the rules!

Team B: By continually breaking 9-1 and contributing to 10-5.

Team A: By continually breaking 4-20-1 and contributing to 10-5.

Again, if each of these acts are done mutually exclusive of the other, I'm probably saying to myself, "Good thinking" and...

...in the case of team B's mutually exclusive act, I penalize the violation. If after team B violates and they continue to violate, I warn coach B...and subsequently T coach B if team B continues to violate.

...in the case of team A's mutually exclusive act, I say "Good play!" whether they get the rebound or not.

However, in the case of A1 purposely heaving the ball off the rim with a baseball throw (or a similar act) to gain an advantage against the intent of rule 4-20-1 (to allow the free opportunity to score 1 point) and team B purposely committing FT violations to gain an advantage against the intent of rule 9-1 (to resume play after the end of the FT), I will warn, and penalize if necessary, both teams.

Because BOTH teams, by each one's direct actions, are trying to gain an advantage that is against the intent of the rules!

Team A: By continually breaking 4-20-1 and contributing to 10-5.

...in the case of team B's mutually exclusive act, I penalize the violation. If after team B violates and they continue to violate, I warn coach B...and subsequently T coach B if team B continues to violate.

However, in the case of A1 purposely heaving the ball off the rim with a baseball throw (or a similar act) to gain an advantage against the intent of rule 4-20-1 (to allow the free opportunity to score 1 point) and team B purposely committing FT violations to gain an advantage against the intent of rule 9-1 (to resume play after the end of the FT), I will warn, and penalize if necessary, both teams.
[/B][/QUOTE]Still can't agree with that,Indy.

Rule 4-20-1 says that a FT is the "opportunity" only. It doesn't say that the FT <b>must</b> be made,or there there will be a violation called against team A if they <b>legally</b> miss the FT. How can team A be breaking any provision at all of R4-20-1 in this case,if they <b>legally</b> miss the FT? Again, there is absolutely nothing in the rulebook anywhere that could possibly be used to penalize team A for <b>legally</b> missing a FT. And if team A <b>does</b> commit any type of violation on a FT, it will be penalized according to the pertinent rule, <b>and</b> team A will <b>not</b> be given a chance at a replacement FT--so that team A can <b>never</b> possibly continue to violate,and thus make a farce of the game.

Opportunity to what, JR???????? SCORE ONE POINT!! I will argue and interpret that in my stated situation, A1 is NOT utilizing the opportunity to score a single (one) point. Rather, they are only trying to RETRIEVE A REBOUND. In a sense, pass it off the backboard/rim to a teammate.

Why am I ruling this way? Because of multiple infractions, by my own rulebook interpretation, that have just been incurred by both teams.

This is my last post on this. It's not worth trying to explain a situation that will probably never happen.

[Edited by Indy_Ref on Oct 24th, 2003 at 12:42 PM]

Indy, I agree with you 100% that team A is not utilizing their opportunity to score a point on the FT. I also agree 100% with you that they're only trying to retrieve a rebound. My point is that there is absolutely <b>NO</b> rule against team A doing either of those things.Both are completely legal acts under the rules.

It is impossible to have multiple infractions against team A, if they aren't committing a rules infraction in the first place.

Guess we gotta agree to disagree on this one- and let 'er go.

Agreed.

I guess I lied...this IS my last post...promise!

I never said I call it that way...just that I could find support for Indy's position within the rules...a point he was challenged on.

Camron, this borders on "what the definition of is is" thinking. You obviously would not call it because you realize (I hope) that the rule book is imperfect and what I suggested is completely outside of what is intended.

I'm sure a good enough lawyer can find "support" for any crime in the "rulebooks" they use, and a lot more thought has been put into the wording of the law (hopefully) than has been put into the wording of the basketball rules.