Deliberate lane violations on free throw?

[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.

[asdf]

Originally Posted by 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.

Oh yes.... It was funny to see them scramble to get matched up.

[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.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

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.

Perhaps you're right on that angle.

Let's explore a different angle...spirit and intent. What is the purpose of the FT lane restrictions? To allow the shooter to shoot the ball unhindered and to establish a point in time where both teams are allowed to enter so neither has an unfair or unintended advantage in rebounding the FT.

Since the team entering early expressly does not want the rebound but only wants to force the shooter (who has no obligation to make the shot) to reshoot so that the clock doesn't start, it seems they have not violated the spirit and intent of the rule.

Maybe we should just ignore what may at first appear to be an obvious infraction under the grounds that the supposed offended team wasn't actually offended.

[billyu2]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy
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.

Yes, and isn't the opposite also true and supported by rule? Actions by the defense intentionally or deliberately done to stop the clock ( or causing a live ball to become dead in this case) should be penalized with the violation OR a technical foul for unsporting behavior. See 9.3.3D Comment. In the OP would it be a stretch to regard the offense as having a clearly advantageous situation? They're up a point, .5 remaining. All they have to do is clank one off the rim, the ball is touched, end of game. Team B has virtually no chance here. Yet we're saying it's perfectly legal for Team B to deliberately and repeatedly commit a violation to cause a live ball to become dead denying Team A, who clearly has an obvious advantage, to complete the game.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Perhaps you're right on that angle.

Let's explore a different angle...spirit and intent. What is the purpose of the FT lane restrictions? To allow the shooter to shoot the ball unhindered and to establish a point in time where both teams are allowed to enter so neither has an unfair or unintended advantage in rebounding the FT.

Since the team entering early expressly does not want the rebound but only wants to force the shooter (who has no obligation to make the shot) to reshoot so that the clock doesn't start, it seems they have not violated the spirit and intent of the rule.

Maybe we should just ignore what may at first appear to be an obvious infraction under the grounds that the supposed offended team wasn't actually offended.

That is a good attempt, but the every single point you've made can be used to justify calling something other than a common foul at the end of the game. An offensive player has the right to move unhindered by the defense, any illegal contact causes an unfair advantage, it is done on purpose to stop the clock, causing an unfair advantage not originally intended by rule, etc. However, we already have definitive direction that constantly fouling (doing something against the rules, on purpose no less), is still allowable. It is even called a strategy by the rules committee. Some of us may not agree it's what the rulesmakers meant to have happen (original spirit and intent), but the committee has decided it is still acceptable, because the illegal action still has a consequence.

I think the OP's play, while perhaps distasteful, is still not worthy of a penalty over and above the current listed penalty, by rule. If a case play or interp comes out that says otherwise, then we would have a more definitive direction.

Realistically though, when will this ever happen?

[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.

[Raymond]

I guess this is one of those situations where it does matter who the "R" is.

[M&M Guy]