Deliberate lane violations on free throw?
 

Hey everyone,

This question is on the IAABO refresher exam:

"A-1 is fouled with 5 tenths of a second on the game clock and the score tied. A-1 makes the first of a one and one. Team B requests and is granted a time-out. Following the time-out team B places four players in the marked lane spaces. As A-1 releases the ball attempting to miss the free throw, all four players step into the lane committing a lane violation. A-1's attempt is unsuccessful. The official awards A-1 a substitute free throw. During the substitute free throw, team B again violates and A-1 deliberately misses the free throw. The referee notifies the team B coach that the next time his/her team commits a lane violation his/her team will be charged with a technical foul. Is the official correct?"

I am stumped because I cannot find any direct or even similar references to this situation in the rule or case book. The way I am interpreting this is that the first violation is treated as though it were accidental. Since all team members then stepped into the lane a second time, it could be interpreted as huddling and a warning is issued based on 4-47. If team B then were to step in and violate a third time, it would be a technical foul based on 10-1-5-d.

To answer the question, I would say YES the official is correct. I am not 100% sure though that this situation constitutes huddling.

Any thoughts, comments, discussion, and interpretations are welcome.

Thanks,
Brian

I'd think you could use 10-1-5 as your basis for a technical foul in this situation, as I'd interpret this tactic as "Allow[ing] the game to develop into an actionless contest", especially if you have an "all four players violating" situation as described. An action like that is clearly intentional.

Maybe under 10-1-5 in the FED rule book?

J, I hope you're a great mind b/c we think alike. :D

Don't use 10-1-5d, no need. 10-1-5 is good enough, and doesn't require official warnings. If you try applying 10-1-5d, the coach will try it again with only B1. This tactic is illegal even if B1 is the only participant.

Funny,
 

After the first two times violating, I didn't see them violate the third time. My game is over.

Why forfeit the game...unless you're saying you wouldn't "see" the violation. Call the T and that solves you problem.

"...I didn't see them violate the third time."

Perhaps if the violation isn't that blatant...but if it's as egerious as made in the OP, wouldn't you say an official would look stupid and silly not calling the obvious here? :confused:

Pretty sure the comment was tongue in cheek. However, I see obvious violations not called all the time.

Is Coach B going to complain? About what? "We were doing something illegal and they wouldn't call it." Screw that. He doesn't have a leg to stand on.

I don't have a problem not calling one in that situation.

I'd prefer to address it. "Coach, we can't let this become an actionless game. If you keep violating, we'll have to issue the T." Pretty simple. I don't like purposely "missing" the obvious violation.

We had a previous thread on this several years ago after I conjured up this exact scenario. The conclusion was to do what Scrapper just posted.

"Well, boys, it looks like he'll shoot till he makes it."

btw you'll have to post the response after your refresher test meeting....I used to belong to board 105.

If this comes out sounding harsh or judgmental, let me just say I honestly don't mean it that way. But whatever we do on this play, that's the one thing I would NOT do. There is no way in the world I'm allowing 45 free throws due to violations.

Warn the coach, T the team, forfeit the game, all of the above. I don't care which one. But do not allow the defending team to simply continue violating to force more free throws.

I seriously doubt there would be any more violations.

For what it is worth this intentional violation is not "actionless" as one suggested. As a coach, I have seen this play taught in clinics. If A-1 misses on purpose it is next to impossible to secure a rebound and put up a shot with 5 tenths of a second from under your own hoop. So the play is to commit a lane violation. If the shooter misses he will shoot again. If he makes it there is no violation and then you can run an inbound play.

This is also taught when team A is trailing by two and needs to miss on purpose to try for a put back to tie the game. The "play" tells team B to violate again in hopes that eventually A-1 makes the FT. Then B is inbounding up 1. Clinics have never discussed violations or warnings but then again when do they?
Interesting to see it appear on the test.

Whether it's taught in clinics has nothing to do with whether it's legal. The fact is, it's an intentional violation designed to bring an advantage not intended by the lane restrictions.

It fits perfectly into what the rule means by an actionless contest. By forcing repeated FTs, they are preventing the game from moving on.

I follow what you are saying, but I'm not sure this is supported by a specific rule. Is this really "actionless"? As far as I can tell, there is all kinds of action in this play - live ball when the shooter has the ball, a FT attempt, violation(s) by the defense, etc.

First, 10-1-5(b) gives us specific language about delaying the game by preventing the ball from being made promptly live, or being put into play. That is obvioulsy not the case here. (c) - (f) deal with specific instances after a team warning for delay, and there is no specific warning available for committing multiple FT violations. (a) deals with a specific instance after the half.

We need to be careful about putting our feelings into what we feel the rule should be. Some feel stopping the game near the end by continuously fouling is "not intended by rule". Could you also say purposely missing the FT is "not intended by rule"? I can't think of anything more "actionless" than the team that holds the ball out near half court to draw the defense out of the zone while the clock runs. But none of these are against specific rules. The point is, what is the difference between a strategy that we may not like, and something that is legitimately against the rules? If the committee ever comes out with a comment, case play, or rule change specifically mentioning not being able to violate multiple times, then I can live with that. There is also precedent in the rules to allow ignoring a violation (delayed violation by the defense on a FT, defense stepping OOB to stop a fast break, plane violation on a thow-in with under 5 seconds left, etc.), so I can live with ignoring (not seeing) the FT violation after a certain number of times. Until then, I may not like the strategy, but I cannot see any specific rule that would allow me to call a T in this case.

Read 10-1-5 again...
emphasis mine.

10-1-5a through 10-1-5f are all examples of things that are considered situations that "allow the game to develop into an actionless contest". They are not the only things that "allow the game to develop into an actionless contest".

I thought they had, but I'm not going back through the archives to find out.

Informal discussion / warning to the coach, then whack.

I think the M&M Guy has a very good point.

Would you call a T on the team who holds the ball out near the division line while the other team stays in a tight zone?

The committee gave us specific examples of what they consider "actionless" - not being available to start the game after the half, preventing the ball from becoming live, and what happens after there has already been a warning for delay issued. The OP's FT sitch does not fit any of these specific situations.

When you expand the definition to fit your feeling of what is intended, how do you separate what is legal and what isn't? My first question above is very legitimate - how do answer an opposing coach who asks you why it isn't a T on the team who simply holds the ball? That's about as "actionless" as it gets. Why isn't it a T on the team who is playing the zone? After all, the other team would gladly continue play if the team came out and played closer defense. So, are they the ones "responsible" for the "actionless contest"? Let's look at the specific play in the OP - at which point do you consider it "actionless"? The 3rd violation? 5th? 10th? Whichever number you choose, how do you justify the previous one NOT being a T, but this one is?

We have to be careful in putting our own feelings into what we feel is a definition. The same is true about about what is an intentional foul. "Intent" isn't really a part of the definition, although you could make your same arguments there.

Intentionally violating is one way to differentiate this situation from holding the ball while the other team plays a tight zone.

There is no rule requiring a team to make the FT.
There is a rule prohibiting the defensive team from entering the lane before the ball hits the rim or backboard.

When these two issues combine (repeated violations where the attempt is obviously to nullify an advantage earned by the other team), I'm siding with the team that's not actually breaking a rule.

I hope someone does come up with a past ruling, then I can calm down. :)

I'm only advocating making sure we know the difference between a distasteful strategy and something that is against the rules.

And where is that differentiation mentioned in 10-1-5?

And what is the penalty for that?

That's fine, but where is your justification for "siding" with one team over another? You can use your exact same justification for calling a T on a team that's behind for continuing to foul at the end of a game to stop the clock, but we all know that has been addressed as an acceptable strategy. We call the violation(s) as they occur, and we don't get to add in another penalty just because we don't like the strategy, and it keeps us from getting to our dinner reservation on time... There is no rule that penalizes multiple violations differently than the penalty for the violation itself, other than the issues of where a delay warning can be issued, as mentioned in 10-1-5. And there is no delay warning available for committing multiple FT violations.

Realistically, how will this ever be a major issue? How many times can a FT shooter attempt to miss without accidentally making it, or missing the rim entirely? So, if they miss the rim, and they have the possession arrow, what happens then?

Again, I understand the points, but I still have not been shown where the OP's sitch is a T, other than expanding the definition of the word "actionless". (Unless, of course, someone comes up with a past interp. Then I'll shut up. :) )

It's obviously not in 10-1-5. I think you make an excellent point, just wanted to demonstrate where one way of differentiating, if we go down that road, exists. "Spirit of the rules." :cool:

I don't know...

it seems when a player is just holding the ball against a "tight zone" the game is STILL MOVING, the clock is running.

When players violate, as in the OP, the game is NOT MOVING, the clock is stopped.

Does that explanation make you feel better M&M?...;)

Difference being that in your example the clock continues to run and the quarter will eventually end.

Actually, 10-1-5(c) can happen while the clock is running, so a T for an "actionless contest" in 10-1-5 can happen with both the clock running and clock stopped.

Maybe I was misunderstood - I'm not advocating calling a T in the stall example, I'm just trying to make sure we have a specific rule basis for expanding the definition of "actionless contest". If we can say multiple violations make a game become actionless, then we have to be prepared to justify where the line is drawn in that definition. My point is we have specific examples already listed in (a) thru (f), and we cannot expand that definition without additional information.

My preferences, in order, still are:
1 - Keep calling the violation(s) until some other outcome happens
2 - After a certain amount of time, ignore the violation by the defense (less prefereable, but kind of supported by precedent)

While mulching leaves, light bulbs came on...
 

Although I thought M&M had a good point-why the T? This scenario came to me: Team B has twice intentionally violated to negate A's strategy of missing the free throw. The officials get together and decide we're going to ignore the next violation and even inform the coaches. Fine. Nevertheless,
B2 and B3 in the lane spaces nearest the shooter both step well into the lane prior to A's free throw touching the rim. The ball clanks off the front of the rim directly to B2 or B3. Now what do we do? Chop in the clock and let time expire? Coach B is now doing cartwheels because we said we're going to ignore the violation and Coach A is mad as hell. Or do we say "ooops" and decide on a do-over this time informing Coach B it will be a technical if his/her team violates again? Seems to me we should have done the latter in the first place.

No....the clock is running and the game will naturally come to an end.

Those are all actions that prevent the game from proceeding. The clock can't start.



"Actionless" is NOT about ball activity or defensive pressure or an attempt to score. It is about the game not moving forward. A team holding ball is not preventing the game from moving forward....the clock is running and the game will end.

In all of the listed cases, the result is the clock not starting....and one of them is a result of a repeated violation that prevents the clock from starting (delay warnings).

You could say that this team is preventing the ball from becoming live....sort of. In any case, they're deliberately committing infractions that are preventing the game from moving forward. That sounds like actionless to me.

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.

"Sort of" doesn't count when it comes to the rules. "Sounds like actionless to me" doesn't really count either. If that actually counted, then I could justify calling the T in my stall example, because, well, standing there with the ball without doing anything with certainly sounds like actionless to me!

I'm just looking for an actual rules basis. Again, find me a past interp, and I'll give in. In the meantime... :)

So, just to clarify, are you saying you'd sit there and let 45 FTs happen in this scenario?

Well, alrighty then, NOW we have a T. :D

Why would he be mad? The .5 seconds left just ran out, and his team won.

Nope, no "do-overs". That's why I don't consider this the ideal solution, only a possibility. If the violation is ignored, it didn't happen, and play continues until the clock runs out.

...and I'd be eating my Snickers, since I wouldn't be going anywhere for a while... Realistically, it will never reach 45 attempts, for the reasons I mentioned before.

I agree, it's a pain in the a$$. But can you show me a rule where, outside of specific delay situations where a warning can be issued, you can penalize multiple violations with a greater penalty than is already listed for that violation? And at what point does it change from a "normal" violation to one that becomes a T?

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.

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. :rolleyes: 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.

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.....

Help me Rhonda...
 

Wait a minute. Am I misunderstanding the situation? Team A is down. They need to miss the free throw and get the rebound to have a chance to tie or win the game. Correct? Team B doesn't want that to happen so they repeatedly violate on the free throw, correct? The officials decide they are going to ignore B's violations so A's strategy might play out. Except B2 and
B3 still violate by entering the lane too soon. The officials ignore the violation, and the rebound is caught by B2 or 3. The game ends, Team A loses its chance to tie or win the game because the officials ignored the violation.

Yep. I misunderstood the OP. However, my scenario illustrates why we cannot choose to ignore the intentional violation.

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.

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

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.

Any time a rule says "such as", it is not an exhaustive list. If you insist that the specific case be listed for it to be applicable, you're ignoring the clear intent that other actions could be considered as actionless. They can't list every possible scenario and expect the officials to use a little of their gray matter to know it when they see it.

Repeated deliberate infractions are not in the spirit of the game....anyway you want to dissect it. Fouls are covered by the Intentional foul rule (whether it is called properly or not is another matter). Violations that wander into the realm of intentional infractions in order to gain an advantage work their way towards unsportsmanlike conduct an/or being an actionless contest.

However you cut it, there is more than sufficient rules support to address it without getting stuck in an infinite loop.

"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?

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.

Misty Water Colored Memories ...
 

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

:)

M&M, I was hoping to get a response to the following similar situation:

Team A is down. They need to miss the free throw and get the rebound to have a chance to tie or win the game. Team B doesn't want that to happen so they repeatedly violate on the free throw. The officials decide they are going to ignore B's violations so A's strategy might play out. Except B2 and B3 still violate by entering the lane too soon. The officials ignore the violation, and the rebound is caught by B2 or B3. The game ends, Team A loses its chance to tie or win the game because the officials ignored the violation. How should the officials have handled this situation?

If you go back and check my previous responses, my first choice is to continue to penalize the violations as they occur.

I can see the reasoning for ignoring the violation in the OP's play using the same reasoning as the interp play where we are instructed to ignore a defensive player intentionally stepping OOB to get a whistle to stop a fast break by the offense. However, the same "what-if" happens in that play - what if the offense misses their layup and the defense gets the rebound?

I don't advise on ignoring any violation - I can't imagine any supervisor advising to ignore any either.

Re: Would you ignore a time-out by a coach who is out of time-outs?

That's a good question. Could the answer be once the layup is missed (or made) to now enforce the intentional violation by the defense? See similar situations in 9.3.3c and 10.4.1 Situation F

I don't think so.

If they can't make a lay-up, I'm not helping them.

10.4.1 is a little different as it's dealing with an unsporting situation.

So, in 9.3.3c you would also ignore the deliberate leaving the floor violation by the defender by reasoning the shooter should have made the shot?
I understand 10.4.1 involves an unsporting act. But the situations are almost identical: A1 has a breakaway opportunity for a lay-up. Coach B commits an unsporting act or B3 deliberately leaves the floor before A1 can attempt his lay-up. Shouldn't the basis for the penalties be consistent in each situation?
See 9.3.3 Situation D

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

How about calling a technical foul based on 4.19.14 for an "unsporting foul"

Okay, I am calling Mr. Annoying Spelling Guy. Your repeated violations of the word "judgment" are too much to ignore.

Thanks Mr. Britton ...
 

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.

It's good to be back. :)

And it's good to be judgd...no "e", right?...

M&M Guy might have been the author......

"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.

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.

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