Deliberate lane violations on free throw?

[billyu2]

Originally Posted by tjones1

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.

So, in 9.3.3c you would also ignore the deliberate leaving the floor violation by the defender by reasoning the shooter should have made the shot?
I understand 10.4.1 involves an unsporting act. But the situations are almost identical: A1 has a breakaway opportunity for a lay-up. Coach B commits an unsporting act or B3 deliberately leaves the floor before A1 can attempt his lay-up. Shouldn't the basis for the penalties be consistent in each situation?
See 9.3.3 Situation D

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

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.

Perhaps you're right on that angle.

Let's explore a different angle...spirit and intent. What is the purpose of the FT lane restrictions? To allow the shooter to shoot the ball unhindered and to establish a point in time where both teams are allowed to enter so neither has an unfair or unintended advantage in rebounding the FT.

Since the team entering early expressly does not want the rebound but only wants to force the shooter (who has no obligation to make the shot) to reshoot so that the clock doesn't start, it seems they have not violated the spirit and intent of the rule.

Maybe we should just ignore what may at first appear to be an obvious infraction under the grounds that the supposed offended team wasn't actually offended.

[billyu2]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy
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.

Yes, and isn't the opposite also true and supported by rule? Actions by the defense intentionally or deliberately done to stop the clock ( or causing a live ball to become dead in this case) should be penalized with the violation OR a technical foul for unsporting behavior. See 9.3.3D Comment. In the OP would it be a stretch to regard the offense as having a clearly advantageous situation? They're up a point, .5 remaining. All they have to do is clank one off the rim, the ball is touched, end of game. Team B has virtually no chance here. Yet we're saying it's perfectly legal for Team B to deliberately and repeatedly commit a violation to cause a live ball to become dead denying Team A, who clearly has an obvious advantage, to complete the game.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Perhaps you're right on that angle.

Let's explore a different angle...spirit and intent. What is the purpose of the FT lane restrictions? To allow the shooter to shoot the ball unhindered and to establish a point in time where both teams are allowed to enter so neither has an unfair or unintended advantage in rebounding the FT.

Since the team entering early expressly does not want the rebound but only wants to force the shooter (who has no obligation to make the shot) to reshoot so that the clock doesn't start, it seems they have not violated the spirit and intent of the rule.

Maybe we should just ignore what may at first appear to be an obvious infraction under the grounds that the supposed offended team wasn't actually offended.

That is a good attempt, but the every single point you've made can be used to justify calling something other than a common foul at the end of the game. An offensive player has the right to move unhindered by the defense, any illegal contact causes an unfair advantage, it is done on purpose to stop the clock, causing an unfair advantage not originally intended by rule, etc. However, we already have definitive direction that constantly fouling (doing something against the rules, on purpose no less), is still allowable. It is even called a strategy by the rules committee. Some of us may not agree it's what the rulesmakers meant to have happen (original spirit and intent), but the committee has decided it is still acceptable, because the illegal action still has a consequence.

I think the OP's play, while perhaps distasteful, is still not worthy of a penalty over and above the current listed penalty, by rule. If a case play or interp comes out that says otherwise, then we would have a more definitive direction.

Realistically though, when will this ever happen?

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by billyu2

Originally Posted by M&M Guy
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.

Yes, and isn't the opposite also true and supported by rule? Actions by the defense intentionally or deliberately done to stop the clock ( or causing a live ball to become dead in this case) should be penalized with the violation OR a technical foul for unsporting behavior. See 9.3.3D Comment. In the OP would it be a stretch to regard the offense as having a clearly advantageous situation? They're up a point, .5 remaining. All they have to do is clank one off the rim, the ball is touched, end of game. Team B has virtually no chance here. Yet we're saying it's perfectly legal for Team B to deliberately and repeatedly commit a violation to cause a live ball to become dead denying Team A, who clearly has an obvious advantage, to complete the game.

billyu2 - see my above response to Camron. It's already been determined that "...actions by the defense intentionally or deliberately done to stop the clock..." is not always considered unsporting; in fact, it is still an acceptable strategy, even though some of us find it distasteful. The reason is we already have a penalty for the violation or foul, and simply continuing to do it isn't necessarily considered unsporting, outside of the specific delay situations.

Again, anyone ever had this happen? It wouldn't even be an issue if A had the possession arrow - if B continues to violate, all A1 has to do is step over the line (violate), and we an alternating-possession throw-in under the basket to team A. Now we have the ability to use a specific delay warning, and then the T.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

That is a good attempt, but the every single point you've made can be used to justify calling something other than a common foul at the end of the game. An offensive player has the right to move unhindered by the defense, any illegal contact causes an unfair advantage, it is done on purpose to stop the clock, causing an unfair advantage not originally intended by rule, etc. However, we already have definitive direction that constantly fouling (doing something against the rules, on purpose no less), is still allowable. It is even called a strategy by the rules committee. Some of us may not agree it's what the rulesmakers meant to have happen (original spirit and intent), but the committee has decided it is still acceptable, because the illegal action still has a consequence.

I think the OP's play, while perhaps distasteful, is still not worthy of a penalty over and above the current listed penalty, by rule. If a case play or interp comes out that says otherwise, then we would have a more definitive direction.

Realistically though, when will this ever happen?

Yet, they have to make it look like a normal foul or they get an intentional foul which carries penalties essentially the same as a T....they have to at least make the play resemble normal play. The rules cover the situation where it is clearly meant to stop the clock with a heavier penalty. That lends support to addressing the deliberate lane violation with a more stern penalty, not the other way around.

I could easily go with no-call based on the fact that the illegal advantage being addressed by the rule is an improved chance at getting the rebound...which the shooting team is willingly giving them.

Whatever you do, the only thing that is not an option in my mind is an infinite loop of violations and FT attempts. CLEARLY, that is not the spirit of the rules.....in fact, it could be considered a travesty of the game if it goes along long enough and a forfeit would be a possibility.

[mcdanrd]

How about calling a technical foul based on 4.19.14 for an "unsporting foul"

[26 Year Gap]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

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.

Okay, I am calling Mr. Annoying Spelling Guy. Your repeated violations of the word "judgment" are too much to ignore.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by 26 Year Gap

Okay, I am calling Mr. Annoying Spelling Guy. Your repeated violations of the word "judgment" are too much to ignore.

My seventh grade English teacher, Mr. Britton, used to tell us, "There's no judge in judgment".

From Wikipedia: In a non-legal context, spelling differs between countries. The spelling judgement (with e added) is common in the United Kingdom in a non-legal context. The spelling judgment without the e is however often listed first and in any case without comment or regional restriction in major UK dictionaries. In British English, the spelling judgment is correct when referring to a court's or judge's formal ruling, whereas the spelling judgement is used for other meanings. In American English, judgment prevails in all contexts. In Canada and Australia, in a non-legal context both forms are equally acceptable, although judgment is more common in Canada and judgement in Australia. However, in a legal and theological context, judgment is the only correct form. In New Zealand the form judgment is the preferred spelling in dictionaries, newspapers and legislation, although the variant judgement can also be found in all three categories. Usage in South Africa is similar to that in Australia. The spelling judgment is also found in the Authorized King James Version of the Bible.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by 26 Year Gap

Okay, I am calling Mr. Annoying Spelling Guy. Your repeated violations of the word "judgment" are too much to ignore.

It's good to be back.

And it's good to be judgd...no "e", right?...

[26 Year Gap]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

My seventh grade English teacher, Mr. Britton, used to tell us, "There's no judge in judgment".

From Wikipedia: In a non-legal context, spelling differs between countries. The spelling judgement (with e added) is common in the United Kingdom in a non-legal context. The spelling judgment without the e is however often listed first and in any case without comment or regional restriction in major UK dictionaries. In British English, the spelling judgment is correct when referring to a court's or judge's formal ruling, whereas the spelling judgement is used for other meanings. In American English, judgment prevails in all contexts. In Canada and Australia, in a non-legal context both forms are equally acceptable, although judgment is more common in Canada and judgement in Australia. However, in a legal and theological context, judgment is the only correct form. In New Zealand the form judgment is the preferred spelling in dictionaries, newspapers and legislation, although the variant judgement can also be found in all three categories. Usage in South Africa is similar to that in Australia. The spelling judgment is also found in the Authorized King James Version of the Bible.

M&M Guy might have been the author......

[Texas Aggie]

"The judgment of the court..." is correct usage. So is, "the official has good judgement." For those of us who have spent more than a decade in the legal field, please excuse us if we leave the "e" out in all contexts, correct or not.

I can't find the rule in the most current rulebook I have (last year), but I could swear there was a rule that covered repeated violations and making a mockery of the game. I don't recall whether it was a T or a forfeit.

Contrary to M&M's point, 10.5 clearly applies. I'm not sure why Cam and others continue to argue the point; its obvious. If its not, apply 2.3 and be done. This isn't happening in my game -- I will inform the coach that repeated violations will result in a T. If Rule 10 doesn't give me that ability, 2.3 does.

Most importantly, there is no state body or supervisor that is going to have a problem with you putting a stop to this.

[billyu2]

Originally Posted by Texas Aggie

"The judgment of the court..." is correct usage. So is, "the official has good judgement." For those of us who have spent more than a decade in the legal field, please excuse us if we leave the "e" out in all contexts, correct or not.

I can't find the rule in the most current rulebook I have (last year), but I could swear there was a rule that covered repeated violations and making a mockery of the game. I don't recall whether it was a T or a forfeit.

Contrary to M&M's point, 10.5 clearly applies. I'm not sure why Cam and others continue to argue the point; its obvious. If its not, apply 2.3 and be done. This isn't happening in my game -- I will inform the coach that repeated violations will result in a T. If Rule 10 doesn't give me that ability, 2.3 does.

Most importantly, there is no state body or supervisor that is going to have a problem with you putting a stop to this.

Because it's fun to argue/discuss and we have the time to do it. But if I have a game tonight and this situation occurs, I'm with you-repeated violations aren't going to happen.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Texas Aggie

If its not, apply 2.3 and be done. This isn't happening in my game -- I will inform the coach that repeated violations will result in a T. If Rule 10 doesn't give me that ability, 2.3 does.

I've already stated my position on the actual play. But right now, I just want to reiterate for the 3,684th time that Rule 2-3 (not caseplay 2.3) allows the referee to rule on any points NOT COVERED BY THE RULES. Free throw violations clearly are covered by the rules, as M&M has been pointing out. If you warn and then assess a technical foul (as I've stated that I would do), you may not do it on the basis of Rule 2-3.

[M&M Guy]

Just received an answer back from Debbie Williamson at the NCAA, but have not heard back from NFHS. If I hear back from them, I will post their answer as well.

My e-mail:
Good morning Debbie,

I would like to present a play that has provoked discussion between officials in meetings and on-line, and would like your interpretation on how to rule:

Score tied, A-1 is fouled with .5 seconds left, and is awarded 2 FT's. A-1 makes the first, to put team A up by 1. TO is called. After the TO, teams are properly lined up for the second FT attempt by A-1. As A-1 is shooting, multiple players from team B step into the lane early and violate, and the FT is missed. A replacement FT is awarded to A-1, and the same violation and missed FT happens again. It becomes clear A is purposely missing the FT to make B rebound the ball and have to go the length of the court with only .5 seconds left, and B is purposely violating to get A to make the FT so B can run an inbound play. What should the official rule? There is a slight difference in how the NCAA rules are written vs. NFHS, so I will ask you from the NCAA perspective.

There is a group of officials that say they would warn team B, then issue a T if they continue to violate. The reasons vary, but the main rules cited are NCAA 10-2-5 (A team shall not delay the game, when the clock is not running, by...), and NFHS 10-1-5 (...Allow the game to develop into an actionless contest...). It would seem intuitive that a team should not be allowed to keep purposely violating, keeping the clock from starting, and thus preventing the game from continuing.

Another group of officials say there is no rule basis for issuing either a warning or T, and that the officials have no choice but to continue to penalize the violation, and continue to award the substitute FT, no matter how many times it happens. The same basic rules are cited - NCAA 10-2-5(b.) and NFHS 10-1-5(b). NCAA 10-2-5(b) states: "After a team warning has been issued, repeatedly delaying the game by preventing the ball from being promptly put into play, such as delaying the administration of a throw-in or free throw by engaging in a team huddle anywhere on the playing court." In the play above, the administration of the FT was not delayed, and the ball was put into play and became live. There is no specific mention of adding an additional penalty for repeated violations, over and above the prescribed penalty for the violation itself.

While the NCAA rule seems clear that there is no basis for penalizing a team for multiple violations once the ball becomes live, the NFHS rule (10-1-5) seems less clear when it states: "Allow the game to develop into an actionless contest, this includes the following and similar acts:...", however, (b) states "Delay the game by preventing the ball from being made promptly live or from being put into play." Points a and c-f involve the specific actions that trigger specific delay of game warnings. Again, the play does not prevent the ball from becoming live or put into play, but the wording "actionless" and "...similar acts..." seem to allow the possibility of penalizing the act to avoid an endless loop of violations and missed FT's with the clock never starting.

While this is a play that may only rarely happen, it has apparently been taught in coach's clinics, so it may come up. Of course, due to the nature of the play, it will come up in a very important part of a close game, so it's important officials know how to rule on this situation, and the rule basis behind it.

Thanks for your help on this.


Her answer:
Thanks for your email and your well written scenario. You are correct that NCAA rules have no provision to warn for too many violations or for too many missed free throws. Rule 10-2.5 cannot be applied to your play. I don't see any of our current rules being able to be applied unless we stretch 10-2.8.d simply because they could be considered to be preventing continuous play. That's really all I have to offer you. As with any other rule, when it gets to the point that the current rule is being abused, the committee will have to address it and create a new rule to prevent the very thing we both know could happen now. Thanks again for writing.

Debbie

Debbie Williamson
NCAA Women's Basketball Secretary-Rules Editor