How do you emphasize a rule that doesn't exist?

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Clearly the POE / Article had a missing word and the author had it in his mind as a violation followed by a miss followed by non-incidental contact:

"If the defender makes contact with the free thrower that is more than incidental, a personal foul is the correct ruling. It is a violation in that situation when the free throw is missed and there is incidental contact on the free thrower. If the free throw is missed and the subsequent contact is ruled a foul, it must be a technical foul since the violation caused the ball to be dead."

Agree completely.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

Personally, I don't think the rule is necessary. Want to protect the shooter? That's cool... Just call fouls when necessary.

As for disconcerting the FT shooter, just treat that situation like any other shooter. No need to make a rule specifically for a free throw. The FT shooter is not defended during the try (like how I accepted that I was wrong about that being a "try"?).

Here's your point of emphasis... Be ready to call fouls against a defender going to box out the FT shooter.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

I'll call the foul for displacement early and won't have to worry about it anymore the rest of the game?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by OKREF

Yes, and according to the POE, once the violation happens the ball is dead, and contact not incidental is a Technical foul since it is dead ball contact.

So we have a POE that doesn't have a corresponding rule and also incorrectly states the ball is dead.

But I'm supposed to be confident that they know what they want.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

So we have a POE that doesn't have a corresponding rule and also incorrectly states the ball is dead.

But I'm supposed to be confident that they know what they want.

And if you are unclear, you are ignoring the statement when there clearly is a rule.

Sorry, but that is silly talk if that is the expectation. That is why I will be asking for clarification from my state. What they ultimately tell us to do, I will advocate right or wrong.

Peace

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by OKREF

Yes, and according to the POE, once the violation happens the ball is dead, and contact not incidental is a Technical foul since it is dead ball contact.

Unfortunately, that is dead wrong. To prove it, consider the following: A1 is attempting a FT. B1 in a marked lane space enters the lane prior to the release. We know that this is a delayed violation. However, if the attempt is successful the try counts and the violation is ignored. If the ball were to become dead, then no point could be scored BY RULE as goals are only possible when a live ball enters the basket from above. Therefore, we can be certain that the ball remains live during the FT attempt when there is a delayed violation. Thus any foul committed during this time is a personal foul.

Anyone instructing otherwise is a silly monkey.

[Nevadaref]

Furthermore, not all violations cause the ball to immediately become dead. For example, when there is a try in flight, a leaving the court violation by the defense or an excessive swing of arms/elbows violation does not cause the ball to become dead and any foul which occurs thereafter, but prior to the end of the try or is committed by or on the airborne shooter is a live ball, personal foul.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by OKREF

Yes, and according to the POE, once the violation happens the ball is dead, and contact not incidental is a Technical foul since it is dead ball contact.

I have not seen the actual text of the POE or the preseason guide yet. Does it really say if the contact "isn't incidental" during a dead ball period that it is a technical foul?
I ask because that is wrong. It should say if the contact is intentional or flagrant, then it needs to be ruled a technical foul if it occurs after the FT has ended. We have a clear rule that instructs officials to ignore common fouls (which are by definition not incidental contact) when the ball is dead.

[APG]

After hearing the process in which NFHS goes about discussing/making rules changes....especially compared to NCAA....this all really comes off as someone implementing a backdoor way to make a rule change.

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I have not seen the actual text of the POE or the preseason guide yet. Does it really say if the contact "isn't incidental" during a dead ball period that it is a technical foul?
I ask because that is wrong. It should say if the contact is intentional or flagrant, then it needs to be ruled a technical foul if it occurs after the FT has ended. We have a clear rule that instructs officials to ignore common fouls (which are by definition not incidental contact) when the ball is dead.

This is from the NFHS Preseason Guide. I got my copy last week with my rule, case and mechanics books.

The free thrower is not allowed to cross the free-throw line until the ball makes contact with the backboard or the basket. That same rule applies to any other player. Players along the free-throw lane lines during free throws are allowed to enter the free-throw lane on the release; however, when the defender crosses the free-throw line and into the semi-circle too soon, this is a violation. A delayed violation signal is used. If the free throw is successful, the violation is ignored.

If the defender makes contact with the free thrower that is more than incidental, a personal foul is the correct ruling. It is a violation in that situation when the free throw is missed and there is incidental contact on the free thrower. If the free throw is missed and the contact is ruled to be a foul, it must be a technical foul since the violation caused the ball to become dead.

[Rich]

Editorial changes and POEs don't require the same process as formal rule changes. Maybe you're onto something....

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by Rich

Editorial changes and POEs don't require the same process as formal rule changes. Maybe you're onto something....

I would be interested in learning about the various processes used if you care to elaborate or start another thread etc.

[BryanV21]

Originally Posted by OKREF

This is from the NFHS Preseason Guide. I got my copy last week with my rule, case and mechanics books.

The free thrower is not allowed to cross the free-throw line until the ball makes contact with the backboard or the basket. That same rule applies to any other player. Players along the free-throw lane lines during free throws are allowed to enter the free-throw lane on the release; however, when the defender crosses the free-throw line and into the semi-circle too soon, this is a violation. A delayed violation signal is used. If the free throw is successful, the violation is ignored.

If the defender makes contact with the free thrower that is more than incidental, a personal foul is the correct ruling. It is a violation in that situation when the free throw is missed and there is incidental contact on the free thrower. If the free throw is missed and the contact is ruled to be a foul, it must be a technical foul since the violation caused the ball to become dead.

Yes, we saw that. But it clearly is an error, due to the fact that the ball is not dead until the try ends.

This is not something from the rulebook, therefore it's not gospel.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by OKREF

...

If the defender makes contact with the free thrower that is more than incidental, a personal foul is the correct ruling. It is a violation in that situation when the free throw is missed and there is incidental contact on the free thrower. If the free throw is missed and the contact is ruled to be a foul, it must be a technical foul since the violation caused the ball to become dead.

And you don't see anything wrong with that verbiage?

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

And you don't see anything wrong with that verbiage?

I don't recall ever saying that it was right. I was just relaying what was printed, and I also believe I said we will have to wait and see if we get clarification from the NFHS.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Clearly the POE / Article had a missing word and the author had it in his mind as a violation followed by a miss followed by non-incidental contact:

"If the defender makes contact with the free thrower that is more than incidental, a personal foul is the correct ruling. It is a violation in that situation when the free throw is missed and there is incidental contact on the free thrower. If the free throw is missed and the subsequent contact is ruled a foul, it must be a technical foul since the violation caused the ball to be dead."

But that isn't anything new, with or without it being a violation for crossing the FT line.

A contact foul after the ball is dead is either incidental or a technical (ignoring airborne shooter situations).