Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyMac
2015-16 NFHS Basketball Rules Interpretations
SITUATION 2: After A1 releases the ball on a free throw try, B1 steps into the lane and backs across the free-throw line to box out the free-throw shooter then makes contact with the free-throw shooter. The free throw is missed. RULING: The official should rule a delayed violation on the opponent. A1 will be awarded a substitute free throw and the contact is ruled a foul. The substitute free throw would be administered with the free-throw lane spaces unoccupied. (9-1-2g Penalty 2b)
|
I just took the time to really examine this ruling (above), and it's wrong. This is why I have absolutely no confidence in anything the NFHS does regarding the new "release" rule.
Why rule a delayed violation? What violation has occurred? The situation doesn't state that the free throw line is crossed before the ball hits the ring, backboard, or the free throw ends. The free throw could have been missed after it hit the ring (release, ball hits ring, defender crosses free throw line, contact occurs, free throw misses)
Also, once the free throw hits the ring, do we still protect the free throw shooter by ruling any contact a foul, or do we only rule a foul for illegal contact (non-incidental)? Or, does this "special protection" end with the end of the free throw (miss)?
This is supposed to inspire confidence that the NFHS knows what it's doing? It can't even clarify a new rule with a properly worded interpretation? Now it has to clarify the clarification?
This is how the NFHS make things "perfectly clear"?
Silly NFHS monkeys. No, I need a stronger statement. Stupid NFHS monkeys.
Seriously. What the heck is going on over at the NFHS? Leadership? Money? Overworked?