Interesting Scenario
 

Hi all,

Here's an interesting scenario that occured about 3 years ago in a local boys CYO playoff game I was working (either 6th or 7th grade):

Team A is down 1
Team A is out of timeouts
Team A fouls Team B with between 1 or 2 seconds left.
Team B is in the Bonus - I believe they were in the double bonus

Team B makes 1st free throw.

Team A then does something interesting. Because they were out of timeouts, the coach had his players "violate" the lane intentionally in case the second free throw was missed. Well, the poor kid from Team B wasn't trying to miss but he did. Alas, he got plenty more of opportunities thanks to Team A's "violations". The kid finally did sink one (after what seemed like an eternity).

Team A tried a long distance pass for a last second shot but they couldn't get it off and the game ended.


The coach from Team A mentioned that this was something he saw that a local high school coach employed.

Any thoughts? I don't think it's "illegal" in the book, but definitely an unusual situation.

After the 2nd or 3rd violation (or at least when I determine that the violations are purposely design to achieve the outcome you describe), I tell the coach and the players that the next violation will be a T. This falls under the "making a travesty/mockery of the game" category in my book (of course that's not the rule book term, just my term). The official certainly has the ability to rule on points not covered in the rule book - this would be one of them.

It's a T'able offense, making a travesty of the game & all that.

Tell them to stop, if they don't then assess the T & clear the lane for B's FTs.

I don't understand the strategy. You could call it disconcertion or just an opposing team lane violation, but you continue to give the shooter more opportunities to shoot. How exactly does that help the violating team?

it gives them an opportunity to advance the ball via a long pass with the clock stopped.

For the 1,342nd time, making a travesty of the game is not grounds for issuing a technical foul. The penalty for such actions is a forfeit of the game (FED 5-4-1).

There is also no provision for issuing a T for repeated violations of the FT rules. You may be thinking of 10-3-6d, but that only addresses repeated violations of the throw-in rules.

You could issue a T if you simply consider the violations unsportsmanlike. But they don't seem unsportsmanlike to me; they seem strategic. I'd be tempted to tell the coach to play ball; if they don't want to play, then we'll just end the game.

I don't think I'd be able to do it in a real game tho, as much as I'd like to. I'd probably go with the T. It's easier to explain and accomplishes the same thing.

In all honesty, guys, if the coach is using this as a strategic ploy, which it certainly looks like he is, then what is the difference between this and fouling at the end of the game? If you think about it, the purpose is the same: keep the clock stopped. We don't give Ts or forfeit games for a coach having his players commit 22 fouls in the last 2 minutes of the game, why should we give one here? Is the coach being a pain in the a$$? Yes, but it doesn't seem like we should punish him for employing, at least what it seems to me, a pretty smart strategic move. Just my $.02.

So....you come out guns ablazin' about how wrong a T is in this case only to talk yourself into agreeing with us?

:confused:

If the same result is a T does it matter what the conclusion you came to on why you gave the T?

Peace

A T is not acceptable in this case. This is not a travesty of the game, the coach is not doing it to prolong the game, be a jerk ect ect. He is trying a LEGITIMATE strategy to try and get a throw-in with the clock stopped. Now you're going to give him a technical foul? That's ridiculous if you ask me.

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.

Peace

No, the guns blazing were for people who continue to advocate a T for making a travesty of the game. If the game is a travesty, that means it's not going to continue. If it's bad enough to call it a travesty, you just end it.

In this case, however, I said that if you feel it needs to be penalized, the T is probably the better option, although I personally don't think it's particularly unsportsmanlike.

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

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).

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?

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.

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).

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.

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 <b>after</b> the ball became live and <b>after</b> 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.

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 <b>before</b> 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 <b>after</b> the ball becomes live. Iow, apples and oranges.... and different rules.

Make a little more sense now?

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.

The violating team <b>is</b> 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.

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

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

Peace

Hi All,

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

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.

Thank you once again for your self-righteous banter. We have all become better for it. :rolleyes:

Peace

The thought that kept going through my mind through the productive posts of this thread was how cruel it could be to the FT shooter if he/she is poor at the line. I think if this drags out to more than a couple of FTs something has to be done to alleviate the kid's embarrasing situation. Part of game management and concern for the well-being of the players, imo.

I'm lost
 

What is the point of this strategy? In the OP, A is down by 1, B gets 2 free throws and makes the first, tying the game. They then employ thier strategy, guaranteeing that B makes the second free throw, putting B up by 1. All this so that they get a throw-in with the clock stopped, which they then have to take the length of the floor and make a basket to come from behind in only 1 or 2 seconds.

That makes zero sense to me.

Looking at the possibilities:

• B makes the second free throw, which puts A right where they apparently want to be -- behind with 2 seconds to make a desperation shot
• B misses the free throw and A secures the rebound. They have a small chance of getting off a buzzer beater, but likely will go to overtime
• B misses the free throw and B secures the rebound. They try a put-back and miss. We go into overtime.
• B misses the free throw and B secures the rebound. They try a put-back and make it. B wins.

I'll take my chances on getting the rebound. Statistically speaking A is more likely to get the rebound than B. Even if B gets it, what are the odds the kid will make the put-back? 50%? 60%? Maybe even 70%? Assuming B has even as much as a 40% probability of gettting the rebound and as high as a 70% chance of making the put-back, that still leaves A with around a 70 - 75% chance of the game going to overtime.

On the other hand, what are the odds of A going the length of the floor in 1 to 2 seconds and making the now-required desperation shot? A LOT lower than 70%!

Um, Ray, if A is down 1 and then B makes a FT, the game's not tied. . .

As far as the "how long do you let it go on" part of the play, this reminds me of the situation where players are lining up for a FT. B2 and B3 take the lowest spots and A2 and A3 line up in the next spots. Well, B2 doesn't like his matchup so he switches with B3. A2 then decides to switch with A3. The four players walk back and forth across the lane, b/c neither one likes his matchup. How long do you let this go on and how do you resolve it?

We talked about this and basically decided, you just stop it. You say, you guys pick a spot and stay there. Can you do this in the situation that we're talking about in this thread? "Hey guys, knock it off! Let it hit and let's play ball."

And we're all dumber from having read yours.

Great comeback Tony. Now tell us all how much you do not read my posts. I thought you never read my posts at all? :p

Peace

Is this the reason you responded to an answer that was never directed at you.

Very, very interesting Tony. Keep changing your story to accommodate your bull****.

Peace

Hey Tony, you've gotta put that guy on your Ignore List...makes the whole board a whole lot more enjoyable!

He is now. I had him on Ignore and took it off last week when he got into it with somebody else over something stupid. Didn't turn it back on until last night. Put it's on now! ;)

Life is just too short.
 

You do not need to put anyone on your ignore the list. I have my own personal ignore list long before the software change. Just do not respond to my posts. I do not respond to your post if it has nothing to do with me. ;)

Peace

BITS, imagine a situation where the clock reads 1 second. Team A is up by 1 shooting 1 freethrow. If the player misses the freethrow then that's a quick rebound and a throw it up 3-pointer. If the kid makes the freethrow you can try and do a long pass and get a better shot.

I reject your reality and substitute my own!

Okay, it makes a lot more sense now.

Maybe this is my the kids don't let me help with their math homework any more. :rolleyes:

Sorry it took so long to get back, but life had me busy! Just wanted to say...
Okay, I get it now! :) Thanks for the patience and clarification, Jurassic. If I was leaning towards a T before...I'm now leaning towards no T, not being able to see a rule that applies.