Deliberate lane violations on free throw?

[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.

[jdw3018]

Intentionally violating is one way to differentiate this situation from holding the ball while the other team plays a tight zone.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

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?

...

Difference being that in your example the clock continues to run and the quarter will eventually end.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by RookieDude

I don't know...

it seems when a player is just holding the ball against a "tight zone" the game is STILL MOVING, the clock is running.

When players violate, as in the OP, the game is NOT MOVING, the clock is stopped.

Does that explanation make you feel better M&M?...

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Difference being that in your example the clock continues to run and the quarter will eventually end.

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)

[billyu2]

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.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by billyu2

Coach B is now doing cartwheels

Well, alrighty then, NOW we have a T.

Originally Posted by billyu2

and Coach A is mad as hell

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

Originally Posted by billyu2

Or do we say "ooops" and decide on a do-over

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.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

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?

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

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

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.

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

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

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.

"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.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

"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...

[Adam]

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

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

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.


...

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.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

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...

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.

[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.