Marist-Fairfield?? Anyone see???

[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.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BoomerSooner

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.

Everything is ignorable. You just don't blow the whistle. It may not alway be advisable, but you can chose to ignore anything.

[blindzebra]

Wouldn't the simple solution be for the shooting team to violate before the other team?

You could have a double violation if the shooter just shoots an air ball as well.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by blindzebra

Wouldn't the simple solution be for the shooting team to violate before the other team?

You could have a double violation if the shooter just shoots an air ball as well.

That would be a good one if the AP arrow favored the shooting team.

But if the shooter violates first it would give the defense what it wants, a throw-in and time to set up a play.