Deliberate lane violations on free throw?

[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.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

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.

You first gave me the distinction of the clock running vs. stopped, now your distinction is the clock only running for a short time. Either way, your justifications for considering multiple FT violations the same as "actionless" are only based on your feelings, rather than on a specific rule basis. That's why I was giving the stall example - I could (very loosely) consider that "actionless" as well, without any specific rule backing, and doing that encourages other "loose" interpretations of other rules.

I agree the OP would be a lousy situation. But all I'm looking for is a legitimate reason for calling the T, other than "sort of", "should be", "sounds like", etc.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

You first gave me the distinction of the clock running vs. stopped, now your distinction is the clock only running for a short time...

Really? You might want to re-read what I said. I said one scenario will allow the quarter to come to an end and one won't. Your justification obviously includes re-writing what I said. And I guess the new word for "judgement" in your rule book is now "feelings".

10-1-5 gives us the leeway to apply our judgement as to whether the "act" of repeatedly violating is causing the game to become an action-less contest.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Really? You might want to re-read what I said. I said one scenario will allow the quarter to come to an end and one won't. Your justification obviously includes re-writing what I said. And I guess the new word for "judgement" in your rule book is now "feelings".

10-1-5 gives us the leeway to apply our judgement as to whether the "act" of repeatedly violating is causing the game to become an action-less contest.

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.

[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.

[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......

[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?...

[asdf]

I don't need a specific rule to address this.

My knowledge of the game of basketball including responsibility of the officials and the coaches points me to assessing a technical foul against the head coach. Problem solved.....

First, in working 65+ games a season, I may have at the most, a dozen lane violations. Having four in a row on a foul shot should alert even the most inexperienced official that something is up.

Next, I know that coaches are charged with the responsibility not of teaching unethical tactics that violate the spirit of the rules. We're talking interscholastic sports here fellas.....an extension of the classroom..... purposely violating the rules just to gain an advantage is against any code of ethics for any coach. We would not stand for it in the classroom, we shouldn't stand for it on the basketball court.

Third, repeated, intentional violations of a rule are not a part of the game of basketball and are to be considered unsporting.

Technical Foul.... problem solved.....

game report to state association to follow.....

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by asdf

I don't need a specific rule to address this.

Ah, right on cue. Feelings really are the same as judgement.

Originally Posted by asdf

...purposely violating the rules just to gain an advantage is against any code of ethics for any coach.

So, you agree that fouling at the end of the game (purposely violating the rules) to stop the clock (to gain an advantage) is an automatic T? Or do you think it's worth a forfeit?

We all know however that the rules already allow for this supposed "unacceptable behavior". So what you and I know and feel don't really apply; we only have the rules, and there is just as much a precedent in the rules to allow for supposed "unacceptable behavior" as there is to not allow it. So, until I get direction about which side this falls under, I cannot make up my own penalties.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Ah, right on cue. Feelings really are the same as judgement.


So, you agree that fouling at the end of the game (purposely violating the rules) to stop the clock (to gain an advantage) is an automatic T? Or do you think it's worth a forfeit?

We all know however that the rules already allow for this supposed "unacceptable behavior". So what you and I know and feel don't really apply; we only have the rules, and there is just as much a precedent in the rules to allow for supposed "unacceptable behavior" as there is to not allow it. So, until I get direction about which side this falls under, I cannot make up my own penalties.

"acts such as:' (but not limited to) or "includes the following and similar acts" is all I need for rules support.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

"acts such as:' (but not limited to) or "includes the following and similar acts" is all I need for rules support.

Which is the exact same support I can use for penalizing holding the ball during the stall, right?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Which is the exact same support I can use for penalizing holding the ball during the stall, right?

No....every single item in the actionless contest article have to do with preventing the game from moving forward.....actions or lack of action that keep the ball from becoming live or being put in play. You have to be in the same ballpark with such a statement, not just on the same planet.

The "action" being talked about in this rule is not referring the manner of play if the game is moving along....it is talking about the game NOT moving along. In a stall, the ball is already in play and the game is progressing.

[asdf]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

So, you agree that fouling at the end of the game (purposely violating the rules) to stop the clock (to gain an advantage) is an automatic T? Or do you think it's worth a forfeit?

Nice try.

Fouling at the end of the game has specific penalties. It's an accepted practice. The rules provide for remedies, remedies that vary depending on the foul. The game will continue no matter what happens.

In the original play that we are talking about, the game will not continue.

One of the attributes of a good official is courage. Taking the stance that "if the penalty is not specifically listed in the book, I'm not penalizing it" shows anything but courage.

We're not making anything up. We're taking care of business as it should be taken care of.

If you don't believe me, take a second and send your stance to your state officiating supervisor and for that matter, each and every member of the NFHS Rules committee.

You'll get laughed out of the building.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by asdf

Nice try.

Fouling at the end of the game has specific penalties. It's an accepted practice. The rules provide for remedies, remedies that vary depending on the foul. The game will continue no matter what happens.

In the original play that we are talking about, the game will not continue.

One of the attributes of a good official is courage. Taking the stance that "if the penalty is not specifically listed in the book, I'm not penalizing it" shows anything but courage.

We're not making anything up. We're taking care of business as it should be taken care of.

If you don't believe me, take a second and send your stance to your state officiating supervisor and for that matter, each and every member of the NFHS Rules committee.

You'll get laughed out of the building.

Nice try yourself.

The violation has specific penalties, and they are penalized accordingly in the OP's play. You (and some others) are advocating adding an additional penalty over and above the standard FT violation.

You've actually contradicted yourself. You specifically said you don't need any rules backing to call the T, yet "We're not making anything up." Nice philosophy.

Most of the time I've heard the comment from other officials about "the courage to take care of business", it is usually code for doing something outside of the rules to fit what they think is fair. Almost all of the time the real courage comes from actually following the rules, rather than doing what seems "easiest" or "fair".

I have e-mailed a couple of rules people to see if we can get clarification on this. It may turn out you're right and I'm wrong about this specific play. But at least they will give me an actual rules reason or clarification, rather than some generic "it's wrong, and you need the courage to do what's right". I have been in the room with a state intepreter who has come down strongly against officials that use that philosophy, rather than following the rules. Every supervisor I have has said they will back every official's call that has a rule backing, no matter how unpopular. Your end result may be right, but your reasoning and lack of rules reference will get you laughed out of the room.