Repeated Lane Violation
 

Sorry if this has been asked, couldn't find it.

Saw this 2-3 years ago...wasn't officiating the game but was interesting.

Team A leads by 1 point with two free throws....A misses the first and B calls a timeout. There is 2 seconds on the clock. B's last timeout and set's up a inbounds play for the game winning basket. B's coach tells B1, closest to the shooter to lane violate before A1 shoots, he wants A to make sure they make the free throw so they can run their OOB play. He tells the Trail that he is going to do this.

Play resumes, A1, the shooter misses two times, each followed by another shot because of the lane violation. A uses a timeout and coach instructs A1 to keep missing, but make sure he hits the rim....

Play resumes and A1 again misses followed by lane violation.....Next attempt A accidentally misses rim...B runs inbounds play and misses 1/2 court shot.

Now if this kept up, what would you have done? Talked to the officials afterward and they were having a hard time coming up with something...

Tell the coach you're going to call a technical foul.

Question: Who had the arrow? They should have called a double violation and gone with the arrow on the last one if they weren't going to call the T.

You mean the team that is violating, correct? Do they get a warning? Would it fall under the "actionless contest" ruling for a technical foul?

Thanks for the input.....that's kinda what I figured it would have to be.

Good question on the arrow and the last should have been a double violation.....It may have been that he messed up and banked it in.....

If the coach tells me (as Trail) what he's going to do; I'm telling him right away that it'll be a T the 2nd time. I'll have to check my book when I get home tonight, but I'm pretty sure you have the right rule in mind.

Actionless Contest ???
 

There are some NFHS rules that deal with an actionless contest. Please see Rule 10-5 and note the words "similar acts". I don't think that the situation described in the thread falls into the category of being a "similiar act" resulting in an "actionless contest", but I'm sure some Forum members would be more than willing to contribute their opinion.

Wouldn't the T be on the team committing the repeated lane violation due to unsportsmanlike conduct, i.e. trying to negate an opponent's obvious advantage? I seem to always read that phrase in the case book.

Wouldn't it have been smarter to just save the freaking timeout for the second miss? I'll never understand coaches.

Maybe because 2 seconds were on the clock and there woulda been maybe only 1.7 after the miss and time out to go the full length of the floor?

Or they may not get even GET the rebound on a miss?

IMO good timeout.

But I woulda given a plan B to my team when A used his timeout...

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.

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 <b> rules violation</b> is the shooting team committing?:confused:

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.

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.

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...

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.

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.

Why? One is trying to gain an advantage not intended by the rule, something the Fed specifically says it doesn't want. The other is simply trying to miss a free throw; something there is no rule against. I'm siding with the team not doing something illegal.
No they don't.

There was nothing wrong with the timeout, what he told his kids to do, that's a different story... But, you have to take the timeout here... you may not get the rebound to call timeout after a second miss..

Coach Mac

Hopefully nobody will mind the resurrection of this old post I found while searching for something else.

What if the shooting team was down by 2 and wanted to have a chance to get a rebound and tie the game. Now by forcing them to make the freethrow it eliminates any chance of allowing the team to tie or win on the putback. This would also allow the non shooting team to begin their blockouts and secure position and eliminate any chance(ok fluke chance) of getting the offensive rebound, and that you could just look the other way on the violation.

Discussed before. T on team B for "failing to allow the ball to become or remain live" or whatever the specific words are.