Actually, 10-1-5(c) can happen while the clock is running, so a T for an "actionless contest" in 10-1-5 can happen with both the clock running and clock stopped.

Maybe I was misunderstood - I'm not advocating calling a T in the stall example, I'm just trying to make sure we have a specific rule basis for expanding the definition of "actionless contest". If we can say multiple violations make a game become actionless, then we have to be prepared to justify where the line is drawn in that definition. My point is we have specific examples already listed in (a) thru (f), and we cannot expand that definition without additional information.

My preferences, in order, still are:
1 - Keep calling the violation(s) until some other outcome happens
2 - After a certain amount of time, ignore the violation by the defense (less prefereable, but kind of supported by precedent)

While mulching leaves, light bulbs came on...
 

Although I thought M&M had a good point-why the T? This scenario came to me: Team B has twice intentionally violated to negate A's strategy of missing the free throw. The officials get together and decide we're going to ignore the next violation and even inform the coaches. Fine. Nevertheless,
B2 and B3 in the lane spaces nearest the shooter both step well into the lane prior to A's free throw touching the rim. The ball clanks off the front of the rim directly to B2 or B3. Now what do we do? Chop in the clock and let time expire? Coach B is now doing cartwheels because we said we're going to ignore the violation and Coach A is mad as hell. Or do we say "ooops" and decide on a do-over this time informing Coach B it will be a technical if his/her team violates again? Seems to me we should have done the latter in the first place.

No....the clock is running and the game will naturally come to an end.

Those are all actions that prevent the game from proceeding. The clock can't start.



"Actionless" is NOT about ball activity or defensive pressure or an attempt to score. It is about the game not moving forward. A team holding ball is not preventing the game from moving forward....the clock is running and the game will end.

In all of the listed cases, the result is the clock not starting....and one of them is a result of a repeated violation that prevents the clock from starting (delay warnings).

You could say that this team is preventing the ball from becoming live....sort of. In any case, they're deliberately committing infractions that are preventing the game from moving forward. That sounds like actionless to me.

Camron - see my answer above. 10-1-5(c) can happen while the clock is running, so there doesn't appear to be a distinction.

"Sort of" doesn't count when it comes to the rules. "Sounds like actionless to me" doesn't really count either. If that actually counted, then I could justify calling the T in my stall example, because, well, standing there with the ball without doing anything with certainly sounds like actionless to me!

I'm just looking for an actual rules basis. Again, find me a past interp, and I'll give in. In the meantime... :)

So, just to clarify, are you saying you'd sit there and let 45 FTs happen in this scenario?

Well, alrighty then, NOW we have a T. :D

Why would he be mad? The .5 seconds left just ran out, and his team won.

Nope, no "do-overs". That's why I don't consider this the ideal solution, only a possibility. If the violation is ignored, it didn't happen, and play continues until the clock runs out.

...and I'd be eating my Snickers, since I wouldn't be going anywhere for a while... Realistically, it will never reach 45 attempts, for the reasons I mentioned before.

I agree, it's a pain in the a$$. But can you show me a rule where, outside of specific delay situations where a warning can be issued, you can penalize multiple violations with a greater penalty than is already listed for that violation? And at what point does it change from a "normal" violation to one that becomes a T?

10-1-5c only allows the clock to run for 5-6 seconds max and then the clock is stopped. Holding the ball at half court doesn't stop the clock.

Also, 'c,d, e, & f' all fall into the delay-of-game category and have formal warnings associated with them, holding the ball at half court does not.

You first gave me the distinction of the clock running vs. stopped, now your distinction is the clock only running for a short time. Either way, your justifications for considering multiple FT violations the same as "actionless" are only based on your feelings, rather than on a specific rule basis. That's why I was giving the stall example - I could (very loosely) consider that "actionless" as well, without any specific rule backing, and doing that encourages other "loose" interpretations of other rules.

I agree the OP would be a lousy situation. But all I'm looking for is a legitimate reason for calling the T, other than "sort of", "should be", "sounds like", etc.

Really? You might want to re-read what I said. I said one scenario will allow the quarter to come to an end and one won't. Your justification obviously includes re-writing what I said. :rolleyes: And I guess the new word for "judgement" in your rule book is now "feelings".

10-1-5 gives us the leeway to apply our judgement as to whether the "act" of repeatedly violating is causing the game to become an action-less contest.

I don't need a specific rule to address this.

My knowledge of the game of basketball including responsibility of the officials and the coaches points me to assessing a technical foul against the head coach. Problem solved.....

First, in working 65+ games a season, I may have at the most, a dozen lane violations. Having four in a row on a foul shot should alert even the most inexperienced official that something is up.

Next, I know that coaches are charged with the responsibility not of teaching unethical tactics that violate the spirit of the rules. We're talking interscholastic sports here fellas.....an extension of the classroom..... purposely violating the rules just to gain an advantage is against any code of ethics for any coach. We would not stand for it in the classroom, we shouldn't stand for it on the basketball court.

Third, repeated, intentional violations of a rule are not a part of the game of basketball and are to be considered unsporting.

Technical Foul.... problem solved.....

game report to state association to follow.....

Help me Rhonda...
 

Wait a minute. Am I misunderstanding the situation? Team A is down. They need to miss the free throw and get the rebound to have a chance to tie or win the game. Correct? Team B doesn't want that to happen so they repeatedly violate on the free throw, correct? The officials decide they are going to ignore B's violations so A's strategy might play out. Except B2 and
B3 still violate by entering the lane too soon. The officials ignore the violation, and the rebound is caught by B2 or 3. The game ends, Team A loses its chance to tie or win the game because the officials ignored the violation.

Yep. I misunderstood the OP. However, my scenario illustrates why we cannot choose to ignore the intentional violation.

Sorry, I was not trying to re-write anything. I was only trying to point out you were giving examples and reasoning that are not specifically mentioned in the rules. They are, on the surface, reasonable enough, and I'm not trying put them down.

I'm not exchanging the word "judgement" for "feelings", but I know officials who get into trouble by doing just that. I know you are using the words "...and similar acts" as your basis for using judgement, but I'm not sure 10-1-5 gives us much room for judgement outside of the specific examples in (a) thru (f). (c) thru (f) are specific delay examples where the official warning is given first, and (a) is the specific situation at the beginning of the half. If it was to apply to ANY violation that is repeated, why wouldn't it say that? Why is each specific delay example given it's own section? The only section that seems to allow judgement is (b), which is preventing the ball from becoming promptly live or being put into play. Even then, it mentions using the resumption-of-play procedure in certain situations first. And we all seem to agree (b) does not apply to the OP, as the ball is alive during the FT.

Ah, right on cue. Feelings really are the same as judgement. :rolleyes:

So, you agree that fouling at the end of the game (purposely violating the rules) to stop the clock (to gain an advantage) is an automatic T? Or do you think it's worth a forfeit?

We all know however that the rules already allow for this supposed "unacceptable behavior". So what you and I know and feel don't really apply; we only have the rules, and there is just as much a precedent in the rules to allow for supposed "unacceptable behavior" as there is to not allow it. So, until I get direction about which side this falls under, I cannot make up my own penalties.

Any time a rule says "such as", it is not an exhaustive list. If you insist that the specific case be listed for it to be applicable, you're ignoring the clear intent that other actions could be considered as actionless. They can't list every possible scenario and expect the officials to use a little of their gray matter to know it when they see it.

Repeated deliberate infractions are not in the spirit of the game....anyway you want to dissect it. Fouls are covered by the Intentional foul rule (whether it is called properly or not is another matter). Violations that wander into the realm of intentional infractions in order to gain an advantage work their way towards unsportsmanlike conduct an/or being an actionless contest.

However you cut it, there is more than sufficient rules support to address it without getting stuck in an infinite loop.