Deliberate lane violations on free throw?

[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.

[billyu2]

Originally Posted by 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.

Because it's fun to argue/discuss and we have the time to do it. But if I have a game tonight and this situation occurs, I'm with you-repeated violations aren't going to happen.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Texas Aggie

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.

I've already stated my position on the actual play. But right now, I just want to reiterate for the 3,684th time that Rule 2-3 (not caseplay 2.3) allows the referee to rule on any points NOT COVERED BY THE RULES. Free throw violations clearly are covered by the rules, as M&M has been pointing out. If you warn and then assess a technical foul (as I've stated that I would do), you may not do it on the basis of Rule 2-3.

[M&M Guy]

Just received an answer back from Debbie Williamson at the NCAA, but have not heard back from NFHS. If I hear back from them, I will post their answer as well.

My e-mail:
Good morning Debbie,

I would like to present a play that has provoked discussion between officials in meetings and on-line, and would like your interpretation on how to rule:

Score tied, A-1 is fouled with .5 seconds left, and is awarded 2 FT's. A-1 makes the first, to put team A up by 1. TO is called. After the TO, teams are properly lined up for the second FT attempt by A-1. As A-1 is shooting, multiple players from team B step into the lane early and violate, and the FT is missed. A replacement FT is awarded to A-1, and the same violation and missed FT happens again. It becomes clear A is purposely missing the FT to make B rebound the ball and have to go the length of the court with only .5 seconds left, and B is purposely violating to get A to make the FT so B can run an inbound play. What should the official rule? There is a slight difference in how the NCAA rules are written vs. NFHS, so I will ask you from the NCAA perspective.

There is a group of officials that say they would warn team B, then issue a T if they continue to violate. The reasons vary, but the main rules cited are NCAA 10-2-5 (A team shall not delay the game, when the clock is not running, by...), and NFHS 10-1-5 (...Allow the game to develop into an actionless contest...). It would seem intuitive that a team should not be allowed to keep purposely violating, keeping the clock from starting, and thus preventing the game from continuing.

Another group of officials say there is no rule basis for issuing either a warning or T, and that the officials have no choice but to continue to penalize the violation, and continue to award the substitute FT, no matter how many times it happens. The same basic rules are cited - NCAA 10-2-5(b.) and NFHS 10-1-5(b). NCAA 10-2-5(b) states: "After a team warning has been issued, repeatedly delaying the game by preventing the ball from being promptly put into play, such as delaying the administration of a throw-in or free throw by engaging in a team huddle anywhere on the playing court." In the play above, the administration of the FT was not delayed, and the ball was put into play and became live. There is no specific mention of adding an additional penalty for repeated violations, over and above the prescribed penalty for the violation itself.

While the NCAA rule seems clear that there is no basis for penalizing a team for multiple violations once the ball becomes live, the NFHS rule (10-1-5) seems less clear when it states: "Allow the game to develop into an actionless contest, this includes the following and similar acts:...", however, (b) states "Delay the game by preventing the ball from being made promptly live or from being put into play." Points a and c-f involve the specific actions that trigger specific delay of game warnings. Again, the play does not prevent the ball from becoming live or put into play, but the wording "actionless" and "...similar acts..." seem to allow the possibility of penalizing the act to avoid an endless loop of violations and missed FT's with the clock never starting.

While this is a play that may only rarely happen, it has apparently been taught in coach's clinics, so it may come up. Of course, due to the nature of the play, it will come up in a very important part of a close game, so it's important officials know how to rule on this situation, and the rule basis behind it.

Thanks for your help on this.


Her answer:
Thanks for your email and your well written scenario. You are correct that NCAA rules have no provision to warn for too many violations or for too many missed free throws. Rule 10-2.5 cannot be applied to your play. I don't see any of our current rules being able to be applied unless we stretch 10-2.8.d simply because they could be considered to be preventing continuous play. That's really all I have to offer you. As with any other rule, when it gets to the point that the current rule is being abused, the committee will have to address it and create a new rule to prevent the very thing we both know could happen now. Thanks again for writing.

Debbie

Debbie Williamson
NCAA Women's Basketball Secretary-Rules Editor