Repeated Lane Violation

[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).

[Mountaineer]

Originally Posted by Big2Cat

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).

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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Rule Book

The Intent and Purpose of the Rules (paragraph 2)
Therefore, it is important to know the intent and purpose of a rule so that it may be intelligently applied in each play situation. A player or team should not be permitted an advantage which is not intended by a rule. Neither should play be permitted to develop which may lead to placing a player at a disadvantage not intended by a rule.

Unless you think the purpose of this rule is to reward the defense, we have a problem with this tactic. The next problem is what to do about it.

Originally Posted by Case Book

9.3.2 Situation D: Comment: Non-contact, away from the ball, illegal defensive violations (i.e. excessively swinging the elbows, leaving the floor for an unauthorized reason) specifically designed to stop the clock near the end of a period or take away a clear advantageous position by the offense should be temporarily ignored. The defensive team should not benefit from the tactic. If time is not a factor, the defense should be penalized with the violation or a technical foul for unsporting behavior. (10-1-8)

This makes it pretty clear that the method the NFHS would prefer we use is to simply ignore the lane violation in this instance.

[Mountaineer]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Unless you think the purpose of this rule is to reward the defense, we have a problem with this tactic. The next problem is what to do about it.

This makes it pretty clear that the method the NFHS would prefer we use is to simply ignore the lane violation in this instance.

Yep, and they also want you to call an intentional in the last minutes of a ball game when they foul to stop the clock as well as assess a technical foul when a coach is coaching outside the coacing box. I'm willing to bet that most do neither (unless the coach is a problem). Again, my point is this strategy puts a "crimp" on the official because of the cat and mouse aspect of the thinking . . . one is trying to miss and one is trying to force him to make it. I'm gonna let em keep going and see what happens.

[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.

[NDRef]

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.