Deliberate lane violations on free throw?

[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 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.

billyu2 - see my above response to Camron. It's already been determined that "...actions by the defense intentionally or deliberately done to stop the clock..." is not always considered unsporting; in fact, it is still an acceptable strategy, even though some of us find it distasteful. The reason is we already have a penalty for the violation or foul, and simply continuing to do it isn't necessarily considered unsporting, outside of the specific delay situations.

Again, anyone ever had this happen? It wouldn't even be an issue if A had the possession arrow - if B continues to violate, all A1 has to do is step over the line (violate), and we an alternating-possession throw-in under the basket to team A. Now we have the ability to use a specific delay warning, and then the T.

[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?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

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?

Yet, they have to make it look like a normal foul or they get an intentional foul which carries penalties essentially the same as a T....they have to at least make the play resemble normal play. The rules cover the situation where it is clearly meant to stop the clock with a heavier penalty. That lends support to addressing the deliberate lane violation with a more stern penalty, not the other way around.

I could easily go with no-call based on the fact that the illegal advantage being addressed by the rule is an improved chance at getting the rebound...which the shooting team is willingly giving them.

Whatever you do, the only thing that is not an option in my mind is an infinite loop of violations and FT attempts. CLEARLY, that is not the spirit of the rules.....in fact, it could be considered a travesty of the game if it goes along long enough and a forfeit would be a possibility.