Interesting Scenario

[deecee]

why is this T worthy?

on a miss team A has virtually 0% chance of tying or winning -- on a make they have probably a 10-20% chance to tie with a long pass and quick shot. JMO

why not T up a team when they foul at the end of the game because that is giving a team that is down an advantage to stop the clock and possibly come back. JMO

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by deecee

why is this T worthy?

on a miss team A has virtually 0% chance of tying or winning -- on a make they have probably a 10-20% chance to tie with a long pass and quick shot. JMO

why not T up a team when they foul at the end of the game because that is giving a team that is down an advantage to stop the clock and possibly come back. JMO

Why is anything T worthy? Do we not use our own opinions to what we feel crosses a line or does not cross a line?

Peace

[wanja]

A T seems like a sensible, practical response if there are multiple misses of the free thorw (e.g. in the worst case the opposing coach instructs his player to intentionally miss).

[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?