1 sec...down by 1, no TOs

pizanno · #1 (**permalink**) Tue Feb 04, 2003, 04:11pm

...you see something new every game:

1.0 sec left in game. Team A down by 1, no TOs.

Team B at line shooting bonus. Coach A tells players to keep violating the lane to allow B1 to make both FTs, and ensure at least a chance for a 3 pointer to extend the game.

Took B1 5 attempts to make 2. Team A got a pass to halfcourt, but couldn't get the shot off in time.

I'm sure someone will argue "travesty", but I believe there's nothing to call. None of the violations were unsporting in nature, A1 & A2 merely stepped on the lane line.

(I also thought if team B has the AP, coach B could tell B1 to airball twice, and they'll get the ball back on a double violation)

Anyone seen this before?

mplagrow · #2 (**permalink**) Tue Feb 04, 2003, 04:20pm

So what if coach B sees what's going on, and tells his player to keep missing? You've got to stop this travesty somewhere.

mick · #3 (**permalink**) Tue Feb 04, 2003, 04:20pm

Quote:

Originally posted by pizanno
...you see something new every game:

1.0 sec left in game. Team A down by 1, no TOs.

Team B at line shooting bonus. Coach A tells players to keep violating the lane to allow B1 to make both FTs, and ensure at least a chance for a 3 pointer to extend the game.

Took B1 5 attempts to make 2. Team A got a pass to halfcourt, but couldn't get the shot off in time.

I'm sure someone will argue "travesty", but I believe there's nothing to call. None of the violations were unsporting in nature, A1 & A2 merely stepped on the lane line.

(I also thought if team B has the AP, coach B could tell B1 to airball twice, and they'll get the ball back on a double violation)

Anyone seen this before?

Sounds like it's time to take a walk over to the coach and mention the word "travesty".

pizanno · #4 (**permalink**) Tue Feb 04, 2003, 04:34pm

Quote:

[/B]

Sounds like it's time to take a walk over to the coach and mention the word "travesty". [/B]

To which coach? It seemed that B1 was trying to make FTs. If coach B tells his player to intentionally miss, then we can consider (but I'd wait a couple of FTs...trying to miss can be just as challenging as trying to make).

Adam · #5 (**permalink**) Tue Feb 04, 2003, 04:41pm

Could a case be made for calling a T based on Rule 10-3-7.a? I know it's a stretch, but if we have to put an end to the circle....

snaqs

BigDave · #6 (**permalink**) Tue Feb 04, 2003, 04:53pm

Quote:

Originally posted by pizanno

Quote:

Quote:

Sounds like it's time to take a walk over to the coach and mention the word "travesty". [/B]

To which coach? It seemed that B1 was trying to make FTs. If coach B tells his player to intentionally miss, then we can consider (but I'd wait a couple of FTs...trying to miss can be just as challenging as trying to make). [/B]

Not if you throw the ball towards the other goal. Missing is very easy that way.

pizanno · #7 (**permalink**) Tue Feb 04, 2003, 05:06pm

Quote:

Originally posted by BigDave
Not if you throw the ball towards the other goal. Missing is very easy that way.

Airball. Double Violation. Next FT or AP.

physicsref · #8 (**permalink**) Tue Feb 04, 2003, 06:03pm

If B has the arrow, double violation is in its best interest. If A has the arrow, the coach who tells his players to violate will get even better than he wants with a double violation.

I certainly don't see it as a travesty if A is doing the only thing possible to secure victory. Some folks see zone defense as a "travesty".

hawkk · #9 (**permalink**) Tue Feb 04, 2003, 06:54pm

Has anyone else ever seen this? (I've thought it made sense as a strategy in an alternative setting: A1 shooting, down by 2 with 1 second left, trying to miss for a chance at the tip in.)

just another ref · #10 (**permalink**) Wed Feb 05, 2003, 12:37am

All of this, in my estimation, falls under the paragraph on page 8, THE INTENT AND PURPOSE OF THE RULES. "....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." I think it is fair to say that this was not the intent of the lane violation rule. I believe that I did see this situation in a college game on TV once. After the second violation the official stepped in and said something while making the "T" sign. I assume it was something along the lines of: "Okay, guys, I see what you're trying to do. Next one will be a technical foul." There were no more violations.

kmref · #11 (**permalink**) Wed Feb 05, 2003, 08:02am

After the second violation the official stepped in and said something while making the "T" sign. I assume it was something along the lines of: "Okay, guys, I see what you're trying to do. Next one will be a technical foul." There were no more violations.

No violations there, BUT what if this was the case after the official spoke to the players...

You have the knucklehead that is 8' tall in there, off the bench, just to rebound. He gives a legit attempt to rebound and still violates. "Got to tech him now".

The more we say the more often we can get in trouble.

ptobs* · #12 (**permalink**) Wed Feb 05, 2003, 08:39am

As a former coach and now a new ref I think this is a great move by Team A. I also agree as a ref you would have to step in and stop it eventually.

mick · #13 (**permalink**) Wed Feb 05, 2003, 08:51am

Quote:

Originally posted by just another ref
All of this, in my estimation, falls under the paragraph on page 8, THE INTENT AND PURPOSE OF THE RULES. "....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." I think it is fair to say that this was not the intent of the lane violation rule. I believe that I did see this situation in a college game on TV once. After the second violation the official stepped in and said something while making the "T" sign. I assume it was something along the lines of: "Okay, guys, I see what you're trying to do. Next one will be a technical foul." There were no more violations.

I like it, justa.

Troward · #14 (**permalink**) Wed Feb 05, 2003, 09:07am

If this were the first of two free throws and there was a double violation, the shooting team loses the first shot and then you adminster the second FT,right?

hawkk · #15 (**permalink**) Wed Feb 05, 2003, 10:31am

Quote:

Originally posted by Troward
If this were the first of two free throws and there was a double violation, the shooting team loses the first shot and then you adminster the second FT,right?

Yeah, but if it's the first of two and the team is using this strategy, they are REALLY stupid . . .