Deliberate lane violations on free throw?

[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.

[billyu2]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Well, alrighty then, NOW we have a T.


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


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.

Wait a minute. Am I misunderstanding the 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. Correct? Team B doesn't want that to happen so they repeatedly violate on the free throw, correct? 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 3. The game ends, Team A loses its chance to tie or win the game because the officials ignored the violation.

Yep. I misunderstood the OP. However, my scenario illustrates why we cannot choose to ignore the intentional violation.

[billyu2]

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?

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by billyu2

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?

[billyu2]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

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?

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

[tjones1]

Originally Posted by billyu2

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?

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?