Deliberate lane violations on free throw?

[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......

[Texas Aggie]

"The judgment of the court..." is correct usage. So is, "the official has good judgement." For those of us who have spent more than a decade in the legal field, please excuse us if we leave the "e" out in all contexts, correct or not.

I can't find the rule in the most current rulebook I have (last year), but I could swear there was a rule that covered repeated violations and making a mockery of the game. I don't recall whether it was a T or a forfeit.

Contrary to M&M's point, 10.5 clearly applies. I'm not sure why Cam and others continue to argue the point; its obvious. If its not, apply 2.3 and be done. This isn't happening in my game -- I will inform the coach that repeated violations will result in a T. If Rule 10 doesn't give me that ability, 2.3 does.

Most importantly, there is no state body or supervisor that is going to have a problem with you putting a stop to this.

[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.

[BillyMac]

Anybody "veteran" enough to remember the lack of action rule? As I remember it, back in the later part of the twentieth century, when behind, the offense had to move the ball past the old twenty-eight foot hash mark. When behind, the defense had to come out to create a closely guarded situation. The officials had to state loudly, "Play ball", to the team responsible for forcing the action.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

Correct. And in the OP, the ball is both live and put into play. So none of the provisions in 10-1-5 apply, because, as you said, every single item has to do with actions or lack of actions that keep the ball from becoming live or being put into play.