Marist-Fairfield?? Anyone see???

[Texas Aggie]

The bigger question is what's the difference between this and fouling at the end to stop the clock or to prevent a 3?

I think both rules committees (but particularly Fed) need to take a firm stance that committing rules infractions, fouls or violations, to gain any kind of an advantage should not be tolerated. Then, give the officials tools to deal with it.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Texas Aggie

The bigger question is what's the difference between this and fouling at the end to stop the clock or to prevent a 3?

I think both rules committees (but particularly Fed) need to take a firm stance that committing rules infractions, fouls or violations, to gain any kind of an advantage should not be tolerated. Then, give the officials tools to deal with it.

Fouling is part of the game at the end. Those who wish to stop it are asking for more than they really want. See all the previous attempts at encouraging more intentional foul calls at the end of games. All disastrous.

[Texas Aggie]

If fouling at the end is part of the game, then so is committing any kind of infraction to gain an advantage.

Specifically what previous attempts do you speak of?

[MidMadness]

Marist was up by 1, trying to miss the 2nd free throw on purpose. As there was less than 1 second left. Fairfield kept stepping into the lane early..I believe 3-4 times. Marist finally made it, Fairfield got to inbounds and get last shot off....

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by MidMadness

Marist was up by 1, trying to miss the 2nd free throw on purpose. As there was less than 1 second left. Fairfield kept stepping into the lane early..I believe 3-4 times. Marist finally made it, Fairfield got to inbounds and get last shot off....

Can anything be done about this by NFHS rules?

[deecee]

if its not disconcertion because the player is trying to miss on purpose I might not call the lane violation. Especially if the offensive team said "hey we are trying to miss on purpose". Just make sure it hits the rim and play on.

[tmp44]

Originally Posted by deecee

if its not disconcertion because the player is trying to miss on purpose I might not call the lane violation. Especially if the offensive team said "hey we are trying to miss on purpose". Just make sure it hits the rim and play on.

And what would be your justification for this? Just choosing not to enforce the rule? And when B's coach says to you we're doing this on purpose to make them make the shot, what's your response?

I don't have my rulebook in front of me, but I don't think under FED or NCAA you have any recourse but to continue to call the violation. For those of you on the previous thread that would call a T after "5 or so" attempts, what is your rule backing? And again, what is the difference between this and fouling at the end? Doesn't seem like anything to me....

[BoomerSooner]

Originally Posted by deecee

if its not disconcertion because the player is trying to miss on purpose I might not call the lane violation. Especially if the offensive team said "hey we are trying to miss on purpose". Just make sure it hits the rim and play on.

You are right that you could ignore it if the defense was trying to commit disconcertion, but this is not the case in the OP. What is going on in this case is a lane violation (Breaking the plane of the lane with a foot prior to the release of the shot), which is not ignorable. Disconcertion involves the subjective judgement of the official, a line violation, however is pretty objective.

I would look toward penalizing B for allowing the game to develop into an actionless contest. The obvious objection to this is that its not really actionless as there is a chance that A could make the FT, but in the grand scheme of things there is no rule that prohibits A from missing a FT, but there is a rule that addresses violating the lane. Obviously with no official directive on how to handle this it will remain a situation to argue and there will be some that disagree with my interp.