Deliberate lane violations on free throw?

[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".

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by jTheUmp

Read 10-1-5 again...


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".

Would you call a T on the team who holds the ball out near the division line while the other team stays in a tight zone?

The committee gave us specific examples of what they consider "actionless" - not being available to start the game after the half, preventing the ball from becoming live, and what happens after there has already been a warning for delay issued. The OP's FT sitch does not fit any of these specific situations.

When you expand the definition to fit your feeling of what is intended, how do you separate what is legal and what isn't? My first question above is very legitimate - how do answer an opposing coach who asks you why it isn't a T on the team who simply holds the ball? That's about as "actionless" as it gets. Why isn't it a T on the team who is playing the zone? After all, the other team would gladly continue play if the team came out and played closer defense. So, are they the ones "responsible" for the "actionless contest"? Let's look at the specific play in the OP - at which point do you consider it "actionless"? The 3rd violation? 5th? 10th? Whichever number you choose, how do you justify the previous one NOT being a T, but this one is?

We have to be careful in putting our own feelings into what we feel is a definition. The same is true about about what is an intentional foul. "Intent" isn't really a part of the definition, although you could make your same arguments there.

[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.

[billyu2]

I think the M&M Guy has a very good point.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

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

Informal discussion / warning to the coach, then whack.

I hope someone does come up with a past ruling, then I can calm down.

I'm only advocating making sure we know the difference between a distasteful strategy and something that is against the rules.

[mcdanrd]

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