Warning first???
 

Would/could you give a delay of game warning before issuing a T? I know that delay of game is not necessarily the rule that you are invoking here (this is really the actionless contest provision I think), but it could be used as a way to put them on notice that this activity cannot continue. You are about to make a ruling that nobody has seen before, so it might pay to give advance notification. It's not like you have to rush this particular one. And it probably gets you out without issuing a bizarre T.

If you can avoid the T and get the desired result, it is probably best in this case. The game may end on a much more even temper, and you won't have to explain your actions later.

By the way, I am assuming that if A is missing intentionally, they are not putting people along the lane to potentially foul B. If I am A's coach and give this direction, I have four players behind half court to be sure we don't put anybody from B at the line thru a stupid foul. And if that is the case, the only team you potentially hurt is B (in case shooter fouls B), and I can't see why we are protecting B in this case. So you could conceivably ignore the lane violation as well. But you would again risk an angry response from B's coach, which you could probably avoid by issuing the delay of game warning.

Me: "Don't matter coach, if he violates again you're getting the T."

I'll anticipate your coach's next brilliant come-back: "Go ahead and T me then!"

Me: :)

That it was I was referring too in my earlier reply. Once I seen this was a problem, I am going over to the coach and warning about what it is going on, and advise him of what will happen if it continues?

Re: Re: Re: Another strategic lane violation
 

But would you rule the same?

The intent will be obvious. The first time,
 

you say to the guy, if you do that again it's going to be a technical foul for unsportsmanlike conduct, the redoubtable making a travesty of the game.

The shots and the ensuing inbounds play should put the game out of reach. If necessary apply one more dose of the medicine.

Is this situation any different in theory than a trailing team attempting to stop the clock by intentionally violating the plane on a throw in following a made basket in the final seconds of a game?

Also don't forget that with 5 seconds or less left in the game, you ignore this violation and let the clock run out- unless the defensive player touches the ball or the player holding the ball.

Yes - the intentional violation of the plane results in a clock stoppage and changes the situation from OOB with clock running til expiration to OOB with clock stopped and time remaining. Now the team must inbound the ball - that is a huge difference.

The intentional lane violation does not change the situation as much, although it does force the shooting team to shoot again, hit the rim, yet miss the FT - not always easy to do! But it is not as significant a change as stopping a running clock.

Again,Coach,if the defense commits an intentional plane violation during the time frame when the clock would have expired(5 seconds or less remaining), by rule we are supposed to ignore the violation and just let the clock run out. Casebook play 9.2.11Comment.

I understand the rule JR - I was pointing out that the situations Stanmi cited are not the same. The reason you ignore the plane violation is that if you paid attention to it, you help the offending team. They get the stoppage and force their opponents to inbound. So the rule says to ignore it, and with excellent reasoning.

While I agree that you could choose to ignore the lane violation, it is not the same situation because the clock is already stopped and you can simply award more FTs via the tech, and give the ball to the offense automatically instead of to the defense. This is a very different scenario than the plane violation with running clock.