Free throw violations by both teams, not simultaneous

[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 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.

Really? B is up by 2 with one FT pending for A. B is trying to get the ball OOB with 1 second left rather than risk a rebound with a two-point lead.

I'm not allowing it, but it's the right concept.

[deecee]

Originally Posted by Adam

Really? B is up by 2 with one FT pending for A. B is trying to get the ball OOB with 1 second left rather than risk a rebound with a two-point lead.

I'm not allowing it, but it's the right concept.

In my 20+ years of basketball I have never seen a purposely missed FT tactic work. The FT normally either bounces high and gets batted around OR flies almost to the backcourt. If a team wins off this it's of the miracle variety. Box out, get the rebound, get fouled, or game ends. Straegizing against miracles is a waste of time and IMO stupid. There's a reason its called a miracle.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by deecee

In my 20+ years of basketball I have never seen a purposely missed FT tactic work. The FT normally either bounces high and gets batted around OR flies almost to the backcourt. If a team wins off this it's of the miracle variety. Box out, get the rebound, get fouled, or game ends. Straegizing against miracles is a waste of time and IMO stupid. There's a reason its called a miracle.

I've seen it work. I've seen the team get the rebound and not make the basket. It's slightly more likely than a hail mary, I suppose, but calling it a miracle is a stretch.

Tuesday night, A had a 1-1 with a 2 point lead and 4 seconds left and B was out of timeouts. They pulled back all their rebounders. He missed the FT, B1 got the rebound and had had a wide open lane to the division line where he banked in the game winner as time expired.

Probably about the same odds.

[deecee]

adam, I've had a similar full court heave or two, but it's the defenses fault. Don't pull your kids back and just instruct them to challenge the shot and not foul. Heaves are way easier when they are unobstructed.

[Coach Bill]

Originally Posted by deecee

In my 20+ years of basketball I have never seen a purposely missed FT tactic work. The FT normally either bounces high and gets batted around OR flies almost to the backcourt. If a team wins off this it's of the miracle variety. Box out, get the rebound, get fouled, or game ends. Straegizing against miracles is a waste of time and IMO stupid. There's a reason its called a miracle.

It worked just last year in the UMD-UVA game at Maryland on senior night. Maryland up three in regulation elects to foul with a few seconds left in order to not give up the game-tying 3. UVA in the bonus. UVA makes the first, misses the second on purpose, and in a battle for the rebound it goes out of bounds off UMD. UVA runs a great inbounds play and scores. UMD won in OT, but that's not relevant.

It's been established there's no NFHS rule against it, but is there a NCAA rule against the non-shooting team violating on purpose? You have to make sure your team has the possession arrow, otherwise the shooting team could violate on purpose right after u do, and gain the possession.

[Coach Bill]

Originally Posted by 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.

It's actually a very good strategy. I think you mis-read it. The coach's strategy is to actually get the inbounds with 1 second left, to give him a better chance of winning.

[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.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

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.

I see... so because some of us responded to paragraphs 3-5, and you, personally, decided paragraphs 3-5 were not "germane" to paragraphs 1-2, the rest of us have somehow transgressed...

Really?