Purposely stepping on opponent's foot
 

Clarification, please. B1 occupies first slot for FTA. Jumps the gun and steps on A2's adjacent foot (quite purposely) as if to keep him on the ground for any ensuing rebound. I get him for violating, and we re-shoot. Given the attitude of this guy, I was shocked he didn't try it again at some point in the game.

Is this just a violation each time, or doesn't it transgress to something more at some point? Did I kick the call? He was not stomping the opponent's foot, just creating what I would consider a potentially dangerous situation for the opponent -- and maybe himself. (I can't remember a worse turned ankle from playing days (and there were many) than when I stepped on another player's foot inadvertently.

if you are on the fense -- just whistle the violation the first time and tell him if he does it again its a T for unsportsmanship. If you are sure its on purpose then just call the intentional foul.

Would that be the offense or the defense? ;)

I don't see why this is a violation. Why not a holding foul?

Easy holding foul. I'd call the foul and violation, I think.

B1 vacated his lane space before the ball hit the rim so he has committed a lane space violation during a free throw. 9-1-3d,g.

He gets the benefit of the doubt one time. Next time will be a personal foul (possibly intentional), and 3rd time gets unsporting T (which could be determined flagrant or not).

Correct. Contact during a live ball is personal. 3rd time you might consider flagrant.

Daryl suggested an unsporting T for what's essentially a contact foul. I disagree. I also am in no way going to call this flagrant; I don't care if he does it 5 times.

I do agree with Daryl's escalation, but....
1. violation.
2. personal foul.
3. intentional foul.
4. intentional foul.
5. intentional foul.
6. intentional foul (player's done now).

Do you really think this even gets to the 4th step?

No way, though a different player could try it (in second or third instances). Then, I'd say go right to the 2. personal, 3. intentional scenario described above. Or skip the personal if you've made it known clearly enough what's happened.

Of course, depending on the, uh, energy put into said foot-stepping-on, it could go unsporting immediately, not unlike an elbow. IMHO (Or now are we getting into flagrant personal/tech territory?)

Also, with a quick look I couldn't find the right violation-foul citation in the book. That is, wouldn't the violation bring a dead ball, thereby casting subsequent foul in a different, harsher light? I know I'm just not looking in the right place (re: fouls after a violation). Or since this is the continuation of the same play, does that matter?

Sorry, but I could bet when I see this team again, it's going to come up again in one form or another.

snaq -- how would this NEVER be a flagrant

How would this be different from a punch or kick? You can tell when someone intentionally wants to step on someones foot. If you have see it happen you know the difference between accident and intended.

Defensive violations do not cause the ball to become dead when they are free throw lane violations. Therefore, you could call the violation and the personal foul (my preference here).

If he does this after the free throw motion has started, let the shot go up and call the delayed violation.

If the offense does it, kill it immediately with a violation. Next time, you could still do both if you don't see it until he's on the foot.

My point was you cannot call this a T; it's got to be personal (either common, intentional, or flagrant.)

Your logic isn't flowing. "How is it different from a punch or kick?" Are you serious?

If you can show me the rule or case play that makes this flagrant, I'm open.

Just because it's intentional does not mean it's flagrant. That's why we have an "intentional foul" option. Good grief.

So in your opinion a player can just walk up to an opponent and slam his foot on the opponents foot maliciously and you are not going to call this flagrant?

What if the oppoent breaks a toe?

deecee, you might want to re-read the OP: