10 second FT violation
 

Has anyone ever called this?

I was told by a clinician to count slowly...

What's your take on this?

My take? Count slowly.
I wouldn't call it unless my slow count got to 13 or 15 and the shooter is still d1cking around.

The rule is there to prevent a team from using FTs as timeouts. A couple extra seconds really isn't an advantage. If you have a player getting close, you could take a second after the free throw to remind him he only has 10 seconds to shoot.

That's the other thing the clinician suggested. I agree with what you said Snaq

Usually in my games the FT shooters release the ball within 5 seconds. I will get the occasional superstitious shooters that goes through the same, long routine with a series of dribbles, tosses, etc. before shooting, but never had anyone reach 10 seconds on my slow count.

I've never called it myself. Closest I've gotten to was an 8 count. Follow what your clinician said and count slowly.

I rarely count. If a player appears to be taking a long time, I'll count and have never gotten to 10 but once. on the next FT, the kid took 12 seconds and I called it. The coach's response? "I told you somebody wasn't going to call it eventually."

I don't agree that the rule is to prevent a TO during a FT. The rule exists because there has to be a time frame. If there was no time limit, theoretically, a shooter could stand there forever and there's nothing we could do about it.

Fixed it for you. :)

9, 10, 11, 12 ...
 

I had this, probably the longest routine I've seen in my twenty-nine years of officiating, last weekend. A sixth grader, in a Catholic school game, actually went through three different routines on each shot; a few one handed dribbles, a few two handed dribbles, and the spin and bounce the ball long toss so it comes back to you dribble. With a big breath before, a pause between each segment, and a big breath before the free throw. Had to be about twelve seconds, or so. I was the lead for all of his shots, so I didn't have a count.

I've gotten up to twelve a few times, never higher, and never called it.

haha, thanks :)

I did not think you apply "Advantage/Disadvantage" for violations. :confused:

When in Rome, my friend. Let me say this; there are a few violations that, if applied strictly by rule, will lead to long and distinguished JV careers.

1. 10 second free throw
2. 3 seconds
3. palming
4. multiple fouls

Them's Fight'n Words ...
 

Exhibit A
Now, granted, I can't show you that the following applies to violations, since the word "violation" does not appear in the passage. However, please note that the passage does not contain the word "foul" either. The passage clearly states that advantage/disadvantage applies to all "rules".

THE INTENT AND PURPOSE OF THE RULES
The restrictions which the rules place upon the players are intended to create a
balance of play; to provide equal opportunity between the offense and the
defense; to provide equal opportunity between the small player and tall player; to
provide reasonable safety and protection; to create an atmosphere of sporting
behavior and fair play; and to emphasize cleverness and skill without unduly
limiting freedom of action of individual or team play on either offense or defense.
Therefore, it is important to know the intent and purpose of a rule so that it may
be intelligently applied in each play situation. A player or a team should not be
permitted an advantage which is not intended by a rule. Neither should play be
permitted to develop which may lead to placing a player at a disadvantage not
intended by a rule.

Exhibit B
From the 2009-10 NFHS Rules:

Each state association may authorize the use of artificial limbs which in its opinion are no more dangerous to players than the corresponding human limb and do not place an opponent at a disadvantage

Equipment which is unnatural and designed to increase a player's height or reach or to gain an advantage shall not be permitted

Exhibit B does not refer to fouls, but, rather, illegal equipment.

Exhibit C
From the 2009-10 NFHS Points of Emphasis:

The traveling rule has not changed; however, the committee is still concerned that the rule is not being properly enforced. Consequently, offensive players are gaining a tremendous advantage.

When the closely-guarded rules are not followed, there is a significant advantage for the offense.

The responsible official must make sure that offensive players are not occupying restricted positions for more than the permitted time (three seconds). The offensive player gains an unwarranted advantage if he or she can “camp out” in the lane,

Players are attempting to gain a rebounding advantage by violating the free throw restrictions and entering the lane early.

Exhibit C describes violations, not fouls.

Your Honor, I rest my case.

I've called it once in 10 years, in a men's rec league, for this very reason, and then only after warning the guy a couple times.

I don't agree with #3. Locally, if you don't call palming, you will stay at the JV level.

I would prefer it that way.

My take on this is simple. This is a black and white call, no gray area. I don't see advantage/disadvantage as a consideration. But how long is long enough?
I am probably a bit tardy in starting the count on this sometimes, but if I ever did reach 10, (hasn't happened yet) I see no reason not to make the call.

Have fun with that.

It's never happened in 24 years, I don't anticipate missing a lot of fun, one way or the other.

We've had many arguments in the past about this. Most of those arguments revolved around whether the Tower Philosophy on advantage/disadvantage only applied to fouls or whether it also applied to violations.Here's one thread on it that I found:

http://forum.officiating.com/basketb...advantage.html

Somewhere there's also an old thread referring to Chuck Elias, an IAABO Board Interpreter, taking that exact question to then IAABO chief interpreter, Jackie Loube. Mr. Loube's reponse was that the Tower Philosophy only applied to fouls.

Note that I haven't changed my position from the old thread posted above.

D1cking Around ...
 

I've been around basketball for over forty years, as a player, coach, parent of players, fan, and official, and I've never seen this called, ever. However, if I were to call this, this is the exact situation in which I would.

Once in ten years, I'd still be there if I hadn't

Mark Padgett, You've Got Competition ...
 

Good one. My nomination for post o' the week.

Good point.

The Tower Philosophy ...
 

For you youngsters out there, here's something from my hard drive on the Tower Philosophy. Sorry, I don't have the source listed.

THE TOWER PHILOSOPHY

The "Tower Philosophy" is not a written document but a guiding principle used by editors of the Rules Committee. The Tower Philosophy came from Oswald Tower, a past Editor of the Rules Committee and was espoused by his predecessor, John Bunn.

Rules Philosophy and Principles

"As a result of observing officiating in various parts of the U.S.A. and internationally and responding to the many inquiries that have come to the attention of the Editor for a response as to the official ruling of a certain situation that occurred, there are some principles that evidence themselves as being basic to the answer of the majority of inquiries. They reflect a need for thought towards a realistic approach to officiating rather than a literal approach. A well-officiated ball game is one in which the official has called the game in accordance with the spirit and intent of the basketball rules as established by the Rules Committee. In effect, it is a realistic approach rather than a literalistic approach.

The basic and fundamental responsibility of a basketball official, while officiating a contest, is to have the game proceed and played with as little interference as possible on the part of the official. This is not to say that he is not to blow the whistle when a rule has been violated; but it is one of not seeking ways to call infractions not intended by the spirit and intent of the rule.

Some thirty years ago, John Bunn phrased for the Basketball Rules Committee what was called the 'Oswald Tower Philosophy', and it best represents what the Rules Committee believes and supports regarding the officiating of a contest. The philosophy is expressed as followed:

'It is the purpose of the rules to penalize a player who by reason of an illegal act has placed his opponent at a disadvantage.'

It represents a realistic approach to guide the judgment of officials in making decisions on all situations where the effect upon the play is the key factor in determining whether or not a rule violation has occurred.

As an illustration, Rule 10 - Section 10 of the rules states, 'A player shall not contact an opponent with his hand unless such contact is only with the opponent's hand while it is on the ball and is incidental to an attempt to play the ball...' If an official did not take a realistic approach to this particular rule and officiated the rule literally, the basketball game would be one of continual fouls and whistle blowing. A good official realizes that contact, not only in the instance cited previously, but also in other aspects of the game must be looked at in terms of the effect it creates on the opponent. If there is no apparent disadvantage to an opponent then, realistically speaking, no rule violation has occurred. The official must use discretion in applying this rule and all rules.

The "Tower Philosophy" stated in another manner is as follows:

'It is not the intent that the rules shall be interpreted literally, rather they should be applied in relation to the effect which the action of the players has upon their opponents. If they are unfairly affected as a result of a violation of rules, then the transgressor shall be penalized. If there has been no appreciable effect upon the progress of the game, then the game shall not be interrupted. The act should be ignored. It is incidental and not vital. Realistically and practically, no violation has occurred.'

The Rules Committee has, over the years, operated under this fundamental philosophy in establishing its interpretations so far as officiating is concerned. Obviously, this philosophy assumes that the official has a thorough understanding of the game. Officials are hired to officiate basketball games because the employer believes that he has basketball intelligence and an understanding of the mood and climate that prevails during a basketball game. The excellent official exercises mature judgment in each play situation in light of the basic philosophy stated. Inquiries indicate that some coaches and officials are too concerned over trivial or unimportant details about play situations during the game. Much time and thought is wasted in digging up hyper-technicalities, which are of little or no significance. In the Editor's travels, he finds that, unfortunately in some Rules Clinics and officials' meetings and interpretation sessions there are those who would sidetrack the 'bread and butter' discussions too often and get involved with emotional discussions over situations that might happen once in a lifetime. In many instances, these very same officials are looking for a mechanical device and many times it is these very officials who are the ultra-literal minded, strict constructionists who have no faith in their own evaluation or judgment. This minority is those who are categorized as the excessive whistle blowers who are not enhancing our game: in fact, they hurt the game. They are the very ones who want a spelled-out and detailed rule for every tiny detail to replace judgment. The Basketball Rules Committee is looking for the official with a realistic and humanistic approach in officiating the game of basketball. Did he violate the spirit and intended purpose of the rule?"

Two years ago, i was working a girls JV game in a conference i had worked in from day one. I would get 1/3 of my assignments in this conference. I show up at the gym an hour before tip because my partner is a name I had never seen before and I wanted to make sure we have a good pregame. The guy shows up AFTER the coach's meeting! This guy truly scared me with some of his calls. I think he was making it up as he went along. I had no clue what he was calling because he used his own mechanics I had bever seen before.

fast forward to end of game. game tied. HT working for last shot and the play works (well, kind of). Girl drives the lane and gets fouled. I blow the whistle for a 2 shot foul with .6 seconds left. I report the foul and then go to administer the FTs. Of course the girl clanks the first shot. So I signal and say one shot, bounce her the ball, and back out of the lane. I kid you not, I reach my mark (the sideline extended of the volleyball court) and my partner blows his whistle just as the girl is about to release her second shot.

Yep. 10 seconds! :eek: (Oh yeah, the shot was good :rolleyes) The call was so ludicrous, the HC for the visitors (the beneficiary of this flustercluck) was bent over double laughing so hard I thought he was going to wet his pants. One of my worst days ever. I was embarassed to walk back into the gym after that game.

I have never seen my partner again. I can prove that by saying I'm not in jail. :D

Perhaps that is why the NFHS has made each of these POEs in the past two couple of years. There are too many officials out there who have the mindset which you espouse here that making these calls is outside of the norm. It appears that the NFHS desires to change that culture.

Let me ask you this, Nevada. How many 3 second calls do you make per game? Or how many per season?

You may well be right, but as Rut is fond of saying, I don't work for the NFHS. If I start making the call when 55 has his foot on the lane line out of play, I'll be doing freshman ball. If I don't learn then, I'll be working middle school ball.

As for palming, I agree. Again, however, I don't work for the NFHS, I work for my association.