Deliberate lane violations on free throw?

[26 Year Gap]

"Well, boys, it looks like he'll shoot till he makes it."

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by 26 Year Gap

"Well, boys, it looks like he'll shoot till he makes it."

If this comes out sounding harsh or judgmental, let me just say I honestly don't mean it that way. But whatever we do on this play, that's the one thing I would NOT do. There is no way in the world I'm allowing 45 free throws due to violations.

Warn the coach, T the team, forfeit the game, all of the above. I don't care which one. But do not allow the defending team to simply continue violating to force more free throws.

[26 Year Gap]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

If this comes out sounding harsh or judgmental, let me just say I honestly don't mean it that way. But whatever we do on this play, that's the one thing I would NOT do. There is no way in the world I'm allowing 45 free throws due to violations.

Warn the coach, T the team, forfeit the game, all of the above. I don't care which one. But do not allow the defending team to simply continue violating to force more free throws.

I seriously doubt there would be any more violations.

[Brick43]

For what it is worth this intentional violation is not "actionless" as one suggested. As a coach, I have seen this play taught in clinics. If A-1 misses on purpose it is next to impossible to secure a rebound and put up a shot with 5 tenths of a second from under your own hoop. So the play is to commit a lane violation. If the shooter misses he will shoot again. If he makes it there is no violation and then you can run an inbound play.

This is also taught when team A is trailing by two and needs to miss on purpose to try for a put back to tie the game. The "play" tells team B to violate again in hopes that eventually A-1 makes the FT. Then B is inbounding up 1. Clinics have never discussed violations or warnings but then again when do they?
Interesting to see it appear on the test.

[Adam]

Whether it's taught in clinics has nothing to do with whether it's legal. The fact is, it's an intentional violation designed to bring an advantage not intended by the lane restrictions.

It fits perfectly into what the rule means by an actionless contest. By forcing repeated FTs, they are preventing the game from moving on.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Whether it's taught in clinics has nothing to do with whether it's legal. The fact is, it's an intentional violation designed to bring an advantage not intended by the lane restrictions.

It fits perfectly into what the rule means by an actionless contest. By forcing repeated FTs, they are preventing the game from moving on.

I follow what you are saying, but I'm not sure this is supported by a specific rule. Is this really "actionless"? As far as I can tell, there is all kinds of action in this play - live ball when the shooter has the ball, a FT attempt, violation(s) by the defense, etc.

First, 10-1-5(b) gives us specific language about delaying the game by preventing the ball from being made promptly live, or being put into play. That is obvioulsy not the case here. (c) - (f) deal with specific instances after a team warning for delay, and there is no specific warning available for committing multiple FT violations. (a) deals with a specific instance after the half.

We need to be careful about putting our feelings into what we feel the rule should be. Some feel stopping the game near the end by continuously fouling is "not intended by rule". Could you also say purposely missing the FT is "not intended by rule"? I can't think of anything more "actionless" than the team that holds the ball out near half court to draw the defense out of the zone while the clock runs. But none of these are against specific rules. The point is, what is the difference between a strategy that we may not like, and something that is legitimately against the rules? If the committee ever comes out with a comment, case play, or rule change specifically mentioning not being able to violate multiple times, then I can live with that. There is also precedent in the rules to allow ignoring a violation (delayed violation by the defense on a FT, defense stepping OOB to stop a fast break, plane violation on a thow-in with under 5 seconds left, etc.), so I can live with ignoring (not seeing) the FT violation after a certain number of times. Until then, I may not like the strategy, but I cannot see any specific rule that would allow me to call a T in this case.

[jTheUmp]

Read 10-1-5 again...

Originally Posted by NFHS Rule 10-1-5

Allow the game to develop into an actionless contest, this includes the following and similar acts:
...

emphasis mine.

10-1-5a through 10-1-5f are all examples of things that are considered situations that "allow the game to develop into an actionless contest". They are not the only things that "allow the game to develop into an actionless contest".

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

If the committee ever comes out with a comment, case play, or rule change specifically mentioning not being able to violate multiple times, then I can live with that.

I thought they had, but I'm not going back through the archives to find out.

Informal discussion / warning to the coach, then whack.

[mcdanrd]

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