Interesting Scenario

[NDRef]

After the third or fourth violation (or however many you decide), just DON'T call the violation. I would love to have the discussion with the coach why I am NOT calling violations on his team while he is arguing FOR violations against his team. This is a no better\no worse solution than T's, Forfeits, etc.

[grizwald]

Originally Posted by NDRef

After the third or fourth violation (or however many you decide), just DON'T call the violation. I would love to have the discussion with the coach why I am NOT calling violations on his team while he is arguing FOR violations against his team. This is a no better\no worse solution than T's, Forfeits, etc.

Sounds good until the defensive player grabs the rebound off the miss, heaves it the length of the court and the basket goes in.

Now you've got a mess on your hands. Coach of violating team suddenly stops arguing for you to call the violation. And the other team is wondering why you didn't call an obvious & intentional lane violation.

You can't go back and call the lane violation now, can you?

[Dan_ref]

Grizwald, if that 6th grade kid heaves the ball from the endline into the basket with 2 seconds left I'm going to stop & shake his hand before leaving the court. And I'll invite the opposing coach to join me.

I like NDref's answer, just don't call the violation. That way you don't have to listen to Chuck b1tching about what is & isn't a travesty and little B1 gets a shot at immortality. If we live enough lifetimes we may get to see him actually make that shot, eventually.

[grizwald]

lol

You've got a point Dan.

But in two seconds time, he *might* get a decent look from 3/4 court. He'd have to be one alert kid though to realize the ref wasn't calling the violation and do that with the ball.

I guess I ignored the 6th/7th grade part of the equation. I need to learn how to read for comprehension. But if we were talking a little older age group, his chances get better (but still not good).

[Nu1]

Does it make any difference to anyone's thoughts on this that this same exact action by the violating team is a technical if it occurs after a timeout? NFHS rule 10-5-1b. Case book 9.1.2 sit A After a timeout, if a team does this, the case book says the official gives the delayed signal and, if the final free throw is missed, instructs the violating team to fill the required spots. If they don't, issue a technical.

I know the original post is not after a time out, but...

Rule 10 - Art 5 says a team shall not..."allow the game to develop into an actionless contest, this includes the following and similar acts;"

"b. Delay the game by preventing the ball from being made promptly live or from being put in play."

I think if you're in the school that wants to issue a T in this situation, you could cite the above rule and say the actions described in the original post were "similar" and allowed the game to develop into an actionless contest.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Nu1

Rule 10 - Art 5 says a team shall not..."allow the game to develop into an actionless contest, this includes the following and similar acts;"

"b. Delay the game by preventing the ball from being made promptly live or from being put in play."

I think if you're in the school that wants to issue a T in this situation, you could cite the above rule and say the actions described in the original post were "similar" and allowed the game to develop into an actionless contest.

The problem is that the ball becomes live as soon as the free throw shooter gets it.....and the defensive team never prevented the ball from becoming live. The violation is occurring after the ball became live and after the ball was put into play. Iow, the actions aren't similar at all and 10-5 isn't applicable.

[Snake~eyes]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

The problem is that the ball becomes live as soon as the free throw shooter gets it.....and the defensive team never prevented the ball from becoming live. The violation is occurring after the ball became live and after the ball was put into play. Iow, the actions aren't similar at all and 10-5 isn't applicable.

Exactly.


I'd like to see one of the T proponents show me a rule they'd use to back up a technical foul.

[Nu1]

Okay, Jurassic. I hear you. And maybe I'm just tired tonight...
But if it is not applicable then why does the case book cite that specific section and advise to issue a Technical?
Isn't the ball also live in the case book scenario following the timeout?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Nu1

Okay, Jurassic. I hear you. And maybe I'm just tired tonight...
But if it is not applicable then why does the case book cite that specific section and advise to issue a Technical?
Isn't the ball also live in the case book scenario following the timeout?

Nope, the ball isn't live when the "T" is issued in 9.1.2SitA. The "T" in that case play is issued if the defensive team delays the free throw administration by ignoring their first warning. They then get the "T" as soon as they again refuse to line up on the lanes before the FT shooter gets the ball for the substitute free throw. The ball never does become live on the substitute free throw before the "T" is issued in this case play.

In the other play with repeated lane-line violations, those violations occur after the ball becomes live. Iow, apples and oranges.... and different rules.

Make a little more sense now?

[Nu1]

Okay, I tried to respond once, but I got knocked off. Hopefully, if more than one post shows up, they both seem to say the same thing.

Yes, Jurassic, I understand your point. Thanks for the help. What I'm wondering is, why not treat the posted scenario like the case book scenario that followed the timeout?

Let the shooter shoot one extra free throw then tell the violating team to line up. If they don't...while you still have the ball...issue the T for the actionless contest stuff and preventing the ball from becoming live. The same cite used by the case book.

The only difference is the case book scenario is after a timeout and the posted senario is after a foul. I'd vote to change a rule somewhere if it means consistent penalties for the same infraction. One action after a timeout should have the same penalty if it's the same action...but it's after a foul.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Nu1

Yes, Jurassic, I understand your point. Thanks for the help. What I'm wondering is, why not treat the posted scenario like the case book scenario that followed the timeout?

Let the shooter shoot one extra free throw then tell the violating team to line up. If they don't...while you still have the ball...issue the T for the actionless contest stuff and preventing the ball from becoming live. The same cite used by the case book.

The only difference is the case book scenario is after a timeout and the posted senario is after a foul. I'd vote to change a rule somewhere if it means consistent penalties for the same infraction. One action after a timeout should have the same penalty if it's the same action...but it's after a foul.

The violating team is lining up though. Every time. They are not committing the lane line violations until the live ball has left the shooter's hands on the free throw. That's the difference between what we're discussing and the case play, and it's a major difference-- live ball violation vs. dead ball violation.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Snake,

Unless you are on the game or the assignor, it really does not matter what you think or if a T is justified. The same would go for my opinion on this issue as it relates to your point of view. I do not think this is a legitimate strategy at all. I am going to give the coach some heads up, but a T might be in order because he is doing something to that is outside of the game and trying to use a loophole in a rule to get and advantage from that. I do not see that as a very sportsmanlike act. That is just my opinion on this issue.

Rut,

Unless you are on the game or the assignor, it really does not matter what you think or if a T is justified.

Or at least that's what you told Snake. So if it doesn't matter what he thinks, why does it matter what you think?

That's just plain stupid.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

Rut,

Unless you are on the game or the assignor, it really does not matter what you think or if a T is justified.

Or at least that's what you told Snake. So if it doesn't matter what he thinks, why does it matter what you think?

That's just plain stupid.

It does not matter what I think as it relates to this post or any other posts. Anyone can take anything said here with a grain of salt and do what they see fit. So if I want to call a T and you do not, who here is going to stop me? Kind of what I do with your posts.

Peace

[JRutledge]

Once again, are you going to stop me from calling what I want to? I did not think so.

Peace

[coach41]

Hi All,

Wow, started a long thread....OOPS.

In any case, a couple of things just occured to me regarding this scenario I presented:

ONE - If the kid shooting the free throw made the initial free throw (or even the subsequent one), we probably wouldn't be having this discussion.

TWO - The 6th or 7th grade coach that copied this strategy from a high school coach probably didn't think about the fact he was dealing with middle school aged children. Free throw shooting is an adventure for even the best shooters at that age.

The 6th/7th grade coach have seen the high school coach employ the strategy. However, I would assume that the high school coach didn't have to sit through 6 or 7 missed free throws for the strategy to work. If I recall correctly, the strategy was employed by a coach at one of the local catholic boys high schools. The coach is a considered one of best in the area.

I do remember talking to my partners (oh, we were doing three man for the game in question) and we didn't come to a consenus on what should have been done.

Definitely an interesting game to remember.