Free throw violations by both teams, not simultaneous
 

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.

This play seems to be going around a lot lately.

The only way you would reshoot is if B1 IS deemed to have disconcerted the shooter.

This. And if not, then you go to the AP arrow.

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.)

The answer to your question is in the NFHS Basketball Rules Book.

R9-S4-A4, Penalty 3: "If there is a simultaneous violation by each team, the ball becomes dead and no point can be scored. Remaining free throws are administered or play is resumed by the team entitled to the alternating-possession throw-in from the designated out-of-bounds spot nearest to where the *simultaneous violation occurred."

R9-S4-A4, Penalty 4b: "If the second violation is by the free thrower or a teammate behind the free-throw line extended and the three-point line, both violations are penalized, as in Penalty Item (3).


MTD, Sr.

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.

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.

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.

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)

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.

The OP was answered early, we moved on.

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.

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

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.

Pretty clear in case book as noted above my Mark. We just had a dicussion about this in our meeting last night. It seemed to me people are getting wrapped aroung the word "SIMULTANEOUS". As this play rarely happens at exactly the same time.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

I agree, and after the game we talked about it in the locker room. He spent 3.5 seconds lining up that shot as he dribbled to the division line.

But I see far more offensive rebounds and put-backs than I do made half-court shots. Is it a long shot? Yep. So? It's the only legal chance they have. Otherwise, they're giving the ball back to the other team, still down 1, with 1 second on the clock.

Thank you for your input. It may be a stupid strategy, it may be a brilliant strategy. Assume now that the shooter is skilled at missing off the rim and the game reaches the "actionless contest" or "impasse" point (shooter keeps missing, opponent keeps violating, re-shoot, repeat). Is the consensus that you would have a warning, then a technical foul on the next violation? Given that you cannot force the shooter to make his shot and end the insanity, how many times would it have to occur before administering the warning?

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.

Until I happened to sneeze at the right moment and not see it. :eek:;)

Plus I think we officials are sometimes loathe to call a shooting foul on a half court prayer. If the contact is huge, yeah. Otherwise (and I'm not saying this is right, but...) we tend to bail out. Good coaches know that. So challenge the shot!

Sort of like in football when the R resists calling a safety unless he is 125% sure the running back failed to get out of the end zone.

This is an insightful post. If it's me, I'll probably give it five rounds or so, because I think somewhere in the five, a shooter will either brisk the net low or bank too high on the backboard, thereby yielding our double violation and allowing us to go to the arrow.

If he can do it five straight times, then he can probably do it all night and we need to try something else. I just don't know which team is more worthy of a warning and/or T at that point because they're both participants in the jackassery.

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.

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.

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?

For me, as soon as I realize they're doing it on purpose, I'm warning.

So, two scenarios.
1. Coach instructs players to do it and I hear him. I'm warning after the first one.
2. No instructions that I can hear from the coach, it may take me a couple of violations to recognize what's going on. I warn them as soon as I recognize it.

They only get one warning.