Agreeing here, JR and Chuck.
<B><font color = green>Equally</font></B> is right!
But first, I'd tell 'em <U>both</U>, in the lane. :)
mick

I don't see how this double T is warranted. Player A started all this non-sense and when the officials didn't address it right away, Player B only did what was being allowed. Now that player is being penalized (could be his 5th or 2nd T) without even a warning to hold his spot.

Here's a solution....don't work men's leagues.

If you must, then I'd go with the double T for delaying the game and we'd play. If 3 times of telling isn't enough, sooner or later you gotta drop it on them. If they were both delaying the game, then they both deserve T's. How many times do you tell your kids to stop jumping on the couch before punishing? Tell them once, make em believe you, if they continue you discipline. If the kids are smart enough to figure this out then so should the men. Well...ummm....at least they should....you get the point.

Player A may have started it, but they both delayed the game. Whack 'em both. That sends the necessary message with the least disruption to the game.

Come on Chuck! There is no way you are going to call that in a college game, and you know it. Be honest.

I would love to be there to hear your explanation. "Mr. Assignor, I couldn't get them to hold their spots on the lane for a FT so I whacked them." Can you honestly say that your assignor is going to say "I am glad you were there to take care of it."

In a college or high school game, the player's will listen to you. This is typical rec boolsh*t.

What's your alternative then when the players don't heed your warnings? AFAIK you still haven't told us.

If it came to that it would be more like "Mr. Assignor, they were out of control and f'ing up my game so I whacked them."

Of course this is something you would only see in a men's rec league, but you knew that already.

Jurassic,
I did present a couple of ideas that I thought would be better in the situation. Get the lane violation. Another would be issue a delay of game (since they are using NFHS rules) as per the rules. As I have said, there are some that I may not have even thought of, but to T the player up for this? Believe me, the players would police the guy before having to give out a T.

My understanding of the event was that these options were not even considered, leaving me the impression that since the crew lost control of such a minor situation, they went out and made a call that could have been avoided. The crew used a big stick when all that was needed was a firm hand.

Since it is generally acceptable to issue the warning first before a T or double T in this case, I wonder to which player the warning should be given?

If the warnings should be given to both players, then at what moment should they be asked to stay in their spots? at the moment when they are walking toward the same side or when they are at the different sides?

Please note that, if the warnings are for both players, the timing of the warnings actually mandate the postions they are going to stay to avoid the Ts.

Thanks.

Jurassic,
I did present a couple of ideas that I thought would be better in the situation. Get the lane violation. Another would be issue a delay of game (since they are using NFHS rules) as per the rules.
[/B][/QUOTE]What NFDHS rule(s) are you gonna use to either(a)call a lane violation or(b)a delay of game warning?

I'm not aware of any rule(s) that are applicable and could possibly be used.

What NFDHS rule(s) are you gonna use to either(a)call a lane violation or(b)a delay of game warning?

I'm not aware of any rule(s) that are applicable and could possibly be used. [/B][/QUOTE]

Bounce the ball to the shooter while Player A is moving, call lane violation.

Preventing the ball from becoming live promptly.

[Edited by icallfouls on May 11th, 2005 at 06:29 PM]

Bounce the ball to the shooter while Player A is moving, call lane violation. [/B][/QUOTE]Do you honestly think that you're gonna avoid confrontation by trying something like that? Any half-a$$ed knowledgable coach is gonna be all over you for not letting his players get set. And know what? I don't have a clue what you could possibly say in your defense when they do get on you.

What do you do if one player happens to get in his spot before the FT shooter gets the ball, and their opponent is still in the lane? You can then call one violation only, by rule. How fair is that?

Can't agree at all with that tactic. It's wrong imo. It's goes completely against the mechanics that we're supposed to use on FT's.

ok so lets end this
 

basically what i wanted to know was who gets to chose who matches up with who -- lets say A1 wants to match up with B1 in a game and B1 tries to move across and doesn't want to match up with A1 -- I just want to know now is it ok to just tell the players that the defense gets to chose the matchup in the lanes? Since thats how regular matchups occur -- the defense picks who they guard.

There is no warning in FED rules for this situation, unless you consider walking through the lane to be "huddling".

Do you honestly think that you're gonna avoid confrontation by trying something like that? Any half-a$$ed knowledgable coach is gonna be all over you for not letting his players get set. And know what? I don't have a clue what you could possibly say in your defense when they do get on you.

What do you do if one player happens to get in his spot before the FT shooter gets the ball, and their opponent is still in the lane? You can then call one violation only, by rule. How fair is that?

Can't agree at all with that tactic. It's wrong imo. It's goes completely against the mechanics that we're supposed to use on FT's. [/B][/QUOTE]

Fine, don't agree. But don't try to sell to people here that you would T in this situation and expect that to be the better solution that any coach will understand when no other solutions were attempted. You know what kind of reputation an official will get for this type of call.

As far as I can see, this topic has run its course.



[Edited by icallfouls on May 11th, 2005 at 06:51 PM]