"acts such as:' (but not limited to) or "includes the following and similar acts" is all I need for rules support.

Which is the exact same support I can use for penalizing holding the ball during the stall, right?

No....every single item in the actionless contest article have to do with preventing the game from moving forward.....actions or lack of action that keep the ball from becoming live or being put in play. You have to be in the same ballpark with such a statement, not just on the same planet.

The "action" being talked about in this rule is not referring the manner of play if the game is moving along....it is talking about the game NOT moving along. In a stall, the ball is already in play and the game is progressing.

Misty Water Colored Memories ...
 

Anybody "veteran" enough to remember the lack of action rule? As I remember it, back in the later part of the twentieth century, when behind, the offense had to move the ball past the old twenty-eight foot hash mark. When behind, the defense had to come out to create a closely guarded situation. The officials had to state loudly, "Play ball", to the team responsible for forcing the action.

Oh yes.... It was funny to see them scramble to get matched up.

Nice try.

Fouling at the end of the game has specific penalties. It's an accepted practice. The rules provide for remedies, remedies that vary depending on the foul. The game will continue no matter what happens.

In the original play that we are talking about, the game will not continue.

One of the attributes of a good official is courage. Taking the stance that "if the penalty is not specifically listed in the book, I'm not penalizing it" shows anything but courage.

We're not making anything up. We're taking care of business as it should be taken care of.

If you don't believe me, take a second and send your stance to your state officiating supervisor and for that matter, each and every member of the NFHS Rules committee.

You'll get laughed out of the building.

Correct. And in the OP, the ball is both live and put into play. So none of the provisions in 10-1-5 apply, because, as you said, every single item has to do with actions or lack of actions that keep the ball from becoming live or being put into play.

Nice try yourself.

The violation has specific penalties, and they are penalized accordingly in the OP's play. You (and some others) are advocating adding an additional penalty over and above the standard FT violation.

You've actually contradicted yourself. You specifically said you don't need any rules backing to call the T, yet "We're not making anything up." Nice philosophy.

Most of the time I've heard the comment from other officials about "the courage to take care of business", it is usually code for doing something outside of the rules to fit what they think is fair. Almost all of the time the real courage comes from actually following the rules, rather than doing what seems "easiest" or "fair".

I have e-mailed a couple of rules people to see if we can get clarification on this. It may turn out you're right and I'm wrong about this specific play. But at least they will give me an actual rules reason or clarification, rather than some generic "it's wrong, and you need the courage to do what's right". I have been in the room with a state intepreter who has come down strongly against officials that use that philosophy, rather than following the rules. Every supervisor I have has said they will back every official's call that has a rule backing, no matter how unpopular. Your end result may be right, but your reasoning and lack of rules reference will get you laughed out of the room.

I guess this is one of those situations where it does matter who the "R" is. :)

:)

M&M, I was hoping to get a response to the following similar 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. Team B doesn't want that to happen so they repeatedly violate on the free throw. 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 B3. The game ends, Team A loses its chance to tie or win the game because the officials ignored the violation. How should the officials have handled this situation?

If you go back and check my previous responses, my first choice is to continue to penalize the violations as they occur.

I can see the reasoning for ignoring the violation in the OP's play using the same reasoning as the interp play where we are instructed to ignore a defensive player intentionally stepping OOB to get a whistle to stop a fast break by the offense. However, the same "what-if" happens in that play - what if the offense misses their layup and the defense gets the rebound?

I don't advise on ignoring any violation - I can't imagine any supervisor advising to ignore any either.

Re: Would you ignore a time-out by a coach who is out of time-outs?

That's a good question. Could the answer be once the layup is missed (or made) to now enforce the intentional violation by the defense? See similar situations in 9.3.3c and 10.4.1 Situation F

I don't think so.

If they can't make a lay-up, I'm not helping them.

10.4.1 is a little different as it's dealing with an unsporting situation.