The technical foul is for the defense committing intentional violations that turn the game into an actionless contest.

You <b>can't</b> pick the offensive team at all because they are <b>not</b> committing a violation and they are <b>not</b> turning the game into an actionless contest in any way. <i>Au contraire</i>, they are getting the ball back into play quicker by missing than if they had made the FT.There is no penalty in place anywhere in the rules that deals with a missed FT. Having a penalty for that would be the height of ridiculousness.

I think the "actionless contest" is the only thing that gives you an out here....although a coach could argue that it isn't actionless....there is no place in the book that a violation when repeated is considered actionless, unless I missed it.

Try rule 5-4-1--"The referee shall forfeit a game if a team refuses to play so after being instructed to do so by any official." Extreme? Yes. But if the defense refuses to play by committing repeated FT violations, you can just tell them to cut the nonsense out, explain the facts of life to their coach, and if they still don't want to listen to you, oh well....

You'd really call a technical foul here? If a player continues to walk everytime they touch the ball - will you call a technical for that too? It's a violation - period. If I were B's coach, I'd have a different player commit the violation everytime but IMO it's sheer genius in the strategy department. I think the only way you could whack the kid here is for making a travesty of the game and that's stretching it. Do I, as an official, like having to call it every time? No - but it's still a great strategy on the coach's part and no way I'd call a technical.

I also agree with one of the previous posts on the double violation and going to the AP.

When did I say that?:confused:

Personally, I'd use 5-4-1 if they continued to commit intentional violations. That's why it's in the rulebook.

That's not very high, anyway. I remember once you called Chuck ridiculous, and he wasn't very high...

I've always wonder what the Fed actually means by the wording, "actionless contest". I would think shooting and missing FT's would be considered "action". I'm not convinced a repeated violation would be considered "actionless". I wish they would put in a couple of case plays to let us know what they consider an "actionless contest" before we start applying that part of the rule book.

Chuck who?

The Chuck that I knew could have been called the height of shortness.

Repeated Violation
 

One obvious solution that hasn't been suggested is simply NOT calling the violation (when it is obvious that they intend to do it repeatedly). As an official I would welcome that "write up" from the coach to the state office--"the referee failed to call a violation on my team in the last 2 seconds when I was trying to force the opponent to make a free throw when they were intent on missing--it's just not fair". No technicals, no arguments--just good game management.

Finding a loophole to your benefit is sneaky at best, unsportsmanlike at the worst. I remember the days when a coach would try to get his kids to line up in the wrong spots (when we used to let 4 from each team in the lane) and then once the free throw shooter got the ball, his kid would leave his spot and tell the other kid to switch with him thus causing a double violation. Is that a great strategy? I call it poor sportsmanship--trying to find a loophole to gain an advantage.

Now, the problem is that both coaches are trying to gain an advantage...one tells his kid to miss the FT, the other coach says to violate until he does. However, the one purposely violating every time is the one making the travesty of the game, as even if the coach tells his kid to make the FT, there are no guarantees that he will. In fact, I have even heard coaches tell there kid to miss the FT and seen them make it.

Anyhow...the onus is on the coach who is violating on purpose time and time again. Missing a free throw (on purpose) is not a violation (unless of course he misses the rim, too).

That's what I meant when I said, there could be "justification for not seeing it." There's also precedent at the end of a game, with the instruction to ignore defensive violations designed to take away an obvious advantage; specifically going OOB unauthorized or reaching across the OOB plane to try to stop the clock.

That's how I would handle it...didn't see the 4th violation, didn't call it, clock runs out, game over. No T's, no wondering who to call it on - just get done and get out.

I would agree to not calling it if they stepped in right before the shot....they were stepping in as soon as the ball was bounced to the shooter.....actually the first time the shooter had to be instructed to go ahead and shoot the ball.....as you can tell it was a blatant violation...I guess you could still ignore it to get the game over with.....

The more I read, the happier I am I wasn't on the court....:confused:

If it is this blatent, I have no problem at all going to the T for unsportsmanlike conduct. A sportsman attempts to play the game according to the rules. Willful violations of a rule is unsportsmanlike. Continued violations before the release cannot not be viewed as anything but willful.

The NFHS specifies that it's okay to ignore defensive violations when they're specifically used to negate a legal advantage.
Examples given are when the defense tries to step across the throwin line to stop the clock when they're out of timeouts at the end of the game(or grabs the ball after a made shot for the same purpose) and when the defense steps OOB while an offensive player has an uncontested layup.
If my assigner questioned me later, I think I'd be able to justify ignoring this no matter how blatant.

If a team is behind by 4 with :30 on the clock and they foul - do you call intentional every time? How about ever? Penalize the infraction and conintue. Do you break up a meeting if a player fouls out and the coach calls the entire team over and uses his time to get the sub in as a time out? Coaches always send subs for the shooter after the 2nd FT has started in order to set up a press - using the rules. I personally have no problem if a coach can use the rules to gain an advantage. There is a penalty for a violation - in this case it's shooting the shot over - you penalize the violation according to the rules, period. I have a problem when we stretch the rule book to make the game fit into our desires. I may not like having to repeat shot after shot after shot - but I can assure you we would if it was my call. I find no way of calling anything here but the lane violation.