Repeated Lane Violation

[CoachP]

Originally Posted by blindzebra

No, it's a bad timeout, because the coach is knowingly and intentionally breaking the rules hoping to gain an advantge...that is completely unethical and actually breaks the NFHS Coaches Associations code of conduct.

I can request 5 TO's per game...what rule did I break again?
What's unethical about giving another team a point?
Also, we coaches tell our kids to break the rules with one minute to go and we are losing by three, don't we????

With that outta the way, maybe you misunderstood what I said. I didn't mean to imply that I liked what he DID in the time out, I mearly responded to your reasoning on why he should have waited until the second miss.

I stand by my statements in the context to which I replied.

[lpneck]

Isn't the team that is purposefully missing the free throw just as responsible for allowing the game to develop into an actionless contest as the team who is committing the lane violation?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by lpneck

Isn't the team that is purposefully missing the free throw just as responsible for allowing the game to develop into an actionless contest as the team who is committing the lane violation?

What rules violation is the shooting team committing?

[lpneck]

Are you calling a technical foul because the game is turning into an actionless contest, or because one team is committing a violation? It seems to me there is a penalty in place to deal with the violation.

If you want to go the "actionless contest" route, I don't see how you can pick one team over the other when they are both responsible.

[Adam]

You have no way of determining if the shooting team is missing on purpose. Also, missing a free throw is not illegal and never has been. The defense, however, is making it obvious by repeating the mistake, even if the coach doesn't tell you so. By repeating this violation, the defensive team is gaining an advantage obviously not intended by the rules. There's your other justification.
There might be some justification for not seeing it, also.

[RushmoreRef]

As I look at these posts recently, I agree that the situation isn't resulting in an "actionless contest"..... It's probably a case where someone will give in eventually or not execute.....miss the rim (like happened) or accidentally make it....I talked with someone who was also at the game and the team violating had the arrow, so a simultaneous violation would have given them the arrow......for a spot throw in, correct?

I guess I would have a hard time stepping in and stopping this......I've looked and don't find anything that applies in the book.....It would make sense to issue a "delay" warning to the table and then a "T", but there's no delay definition that goes with this...

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by RushmoreRef

I guess I would have a hard time stepping in and stopping this......I've looked and don't find anything that applies in the book.....

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....

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by lpneck

Are you calling a technical foul because the game is turning into an actionless contest, or because one team is committing a violation? It seems to me there is a penalty in place to deal with the violation.

If you want to go the "actionless contest" route, I don't see how you can pick one team over the other when they are both responsible.

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

You can't pick the offensive team at all because they are not committing a violation and they are not turning the game into an actionless contest in any way. Au contraire, 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.

[RushmoreRef]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

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

You can't pick the offensive team at all because they are not committing a violation and they are not turning the game into an actionless contest in any way. Au contraire, 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.

[Mountaineer]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

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

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.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Mountaineer

You'd really call a technical foul here?

When did I say that?

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

[Big2Cat]

Originally Posted by Mountaineer

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.

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).

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

...that would be the height of ridiculousness.

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.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

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

Chuck who?

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