Free throw violations by both teams, not simultaneous

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by so cal lurker

Is there any point at which B would be penalized beyond a re-shoot for persistently violating? (Of course, if A has the arrow, a deliberate air ball could allow them a desperation in bound of higher probability than a tip in on a FT.)

I don't think so. I looked up the word "repeatedly" in the rules and it never appears in the book in this context. Repeated technical foul infractions or violations of the throw-in boundary plane, yes. Free-throw violations, no.

So if Team B has the arrow, it's actually a pretty brilliant strategy in this case.

[just another ref]

It falls under intent and purpose of the rules. A team shall not be permitted to gain an advantage not intended by a rule. (or something like that) The purpose of a lane violation is not to force the other team to make it. If a player obviously deliberately violates multiple times, warn 'em then whack 'em.

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by just another ref

It falls under intent and purpose of the rules. A team shall not be permitted to gain an advantage not intended by a rule. (or something like that) The purpose of a lane violation is not to force the other team to make it. If a player obviously deliberately violates multiple times, warn 'em then whack 'em.

The intent and purpose of calling a personal foul on a team down late is not to help the down team get extra possessions, yet we accept this strategy. I don't see how Coach B's strategy is any different in this case. If the NFHS wanted us to take a different approach, they'd write a case play about it just like they did for purposeful throw-in boundary violations with under 5 seconds left.

But I respect the opposing view, too. It has merit.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

The intent and purpose of calling a personal foul on a team down late is not to help the down team get extra possessions, yet we accept this strategy. I don't see how Coach B's strategy is any different in this case. If the NFHS wanted us to take a different approach, they'd write a case play about it just like they did for purposeful throw-in boundary violations with under 5 seconds left.

But I respect the opposing view, too. It has merit.

As mentioned by Adam, the part about preventing the ball from being put in play could be considered. There's also something back there somewhere about allowing/causing the game to become an actionless contest. (or something like that)

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

I am surprised how this thread has gone off the rails. The rules tell us exactly how to handle this play (See my previous post with the OP quoted.): The ball is put back into play via the AP Arrow. All this talk about repeated violations by one team or the other is not germane to the OP.

MTD, Sr.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

I am surprised how this thread has gone off the rails. The rules tell us exactly how to handle this play (See my previous post with the OP quoted.): The ball is put back into play via the AP Arrow. All this talk about repeated violations by one team or the other is not germane to the OP.

MTD, Sr.

The discussion has wandered away from the OP.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

I am surprised how this thread has gone off the rails. The rules tell us exactly how to handle this play (See my previous post with the OP quoted.): The ball is put back into play via the AP Arrow. All this talk about repeated violations by one team or the other is not germane to the OP.

MTD, Sr.

The OP was answered early, we moved on.

[deecee]

We can add Coach B's strategy to the stupid and insane list of basketball strategies. If your team has the ball for an inbounds with a 1 point lead with 1 second to go and you lose the game, then you deserve the loss.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

I am surprised how this thread has gone off the rails. The rules tell us exactly how to handle this play (See my previous post with the OP quoted.): The ball is put back into play via the AP Arrow. All this talk about repeated violations by one team or the other is not germane to the OP.

MTD, Sr.

Mark, would you care to go back and read the OP again?

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Adam

Mark, would you care to go back and read the OP again?

Yes I have read the OP. Now read my first post (Post #5). From the very get go the NFHS Rules that I quoted handles the play in the OP unless you judge B1's actions to be Disconcetion Action. If B1's actions are not judged to be Disconcerting then you have two violations that are covered by the Rules that I qouted in my first post (Post #5) and there will be now further FTs attempted; the Ball is put back into play via the AP Arrow.

MTD, Sr.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

I am surprised how this thread has gone off the rails. The rules tell us exactly how to handle this play (See my previous post with the OP quoted.): The ball is put back into play via the AP Arrow. All this talk about repeated violations by one team or the other is not germane to the OP.

MTD, Sr.

Why would it not be germane to the OP ... it's IN the OP (paragraphs 4 and 5).

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by CoachJW

A1 shooting the 2nd of 2 free throws. B1, in a marked lane space, steps into the lane before the shot is released. A1's free throw does not contact the ring. B1's violation was not deemed to be disconcerting to the shooter.

I have posed this question to several officials this year and most say we would shoot the free throw again. Some have said AP, and others have said the A1 violation would put the ball out of bounds to team B, disregarding the B1 violation.

Now the game situation where you might see this. I would like to hear if it would persuade your ruling:

Team A is trailing by 2 points with 1 second on the clock. They are shooting the 2nd of 2 free throws. Therefore, a made free throw puts the ball out of bounds to team B, who would still be ahead by one point. Team A will instead be attempting to miss the free throw, grab the rebound, and score to tie or win the game. However, team B's coach (who has the lead) has instructed a player to step into the lane. A's shooter misses off the rim once, but B1 violated, so we shoot it again. B1 violates again, and A's shooter misses off the rim again. Finally, B1 violates again, and A's shooter throws up an airball.

I first heard of this strategy (from team B's perspective) reading some clinic notes from the late, great Don Meyer, and it got me wondering what would actually happen. Thanks for your help.

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Why would it not be germane to the OP ... it's IN the OP (paragraphs 4 and 5).

I highlighted the Original Situation in this thread in red. And I referenced the appropriate NFHS Rules (Post #5 in the Thread) which apply to the Original Situation.

The OP goes off the rails by positing the Original Situation as a game strategy (Paragraphs 3, 4, and 5 in the OP) when the Rules will not allow it to go any further than an AP Throw-in. This is where the Thread went off of the rails and therefore not germane to the Origninal Situation.

MTD, Sr.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

I don't think so. I looked up the word "repeatedly" in the rules and it never appears in the book in this context. Repeated technical foul infractions or violations of the throw-in boundary plane, yes. Free-throw violations, no.

So if Team B has the arrow, it's actually a pretty brilliant strategy in this case.

I'm not allowing this to continue. As soon as it becomes obvious that B is violating in order to gain an advantage not intended by the rules, I'm going to instruct them to stop. Next one is a technical foul based on 10-3-5a, "preventing the ball... from being put in play."

I know there's some disagreement on this, but it's clear to me, and A isn't doing anything wrong by missing the free throw. B is breaking the rule with the violation. The result is an impasse. I'm going to stop the impasse by stopping the team that's actually breaking the rules.