Marist-Fairfield?? Anyone see???
 

First of all, the thread below went into a new topic..So I would really like to know how many more times Fairfield was going to be able to get away with lane violations to gain an obvious advantage before the technical was going to be called in your game???

Also, when the clock went haywire at the end, and they went to the replay to fix things up...Did anyone see the player step out or did I miss it?? I know they have a much smaller monitor to look at then my 50 inch HD, but I never saw no one step out..Thoughts??

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.

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?

Lane Violation
 

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....

Nfhs ???
 

Can anything be done about this by NFHS rules?

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....

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.

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

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.

BadNewsRef has a great coaching solution (it would indeed be "Touche!" territory for the FT shooter to simply step over the line after the opponent already has entered the lane ... assuming, as you said, that the shooting team has the AP arrow). Unfortunately, we're officials and we probably shouldn't be pointing out coaching strategies to coaches at the end of the game.... (Just to be clear: I'm not suggesting that BadNewsRef suggested it was an officiating strategy. I'm just pointing out that we officials can't really offer that particular solution to this problem)

Man, that's a great move there if the shooting team does actually have the AP arrow.

The non-shooting team's coach is gonna be beside himself when he figures out he just gave the shooting team the ball under the basket for a throw-in. :D

That would be a funny scenario.....Now if i'm the losing coach, I have my player commit a foul as soon as the ball is at the disposal of the thrower, and we start the merry-go-round all over again!!!