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

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

I just got mine today and it's not listed as a violation in Rule 8 or 9.

Is there any casebook citation? Perhaps something along the lines of ignoring the violation when a foul against the free thrower follows?

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Freddy

Is there any casebook citation? Perhaps something along the lines of ignoring the violation when a foul against the free thrower follows?

Nope, the case plays for 9.1 seem to be the same as last year.

[bballref3966]

The NFHS did nothing to improve the backcourt rule or team control. Not that I'm surprised.

Here's a new article under the point of interruption rule (4-36)

“ART. 3 . . . When the ball remains live after a violation or foul (as in 4-19-8) during a try for goal, the point of interruption is determined to be when the ball becomes dead following the violation or foul.”

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by bballref3966

The NFHS did nothing to improve the backcourt rule or team control. Not that I'm surprised.

Here's a new article under the point of interruption rule (4-36)

“ART. 3 . . . When the ball remains live after a violation or foul (as in 4-19-8). . .”

What does 4-19-8 (double fouls) have to do with anything?

[grunewar]

Originally Posted by bballref3966

The other thing I immediately checked for was whether or not they're allowing two-handed reporting. Alas, still required to use one hand according to the NFHS.

Yep, that sure stops em from using two hands here (sarc).

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

I realize not everybody feels the same way, but the details matter to me.

I feel the same way. It looks like the infamous "IAABO (Peter Webb) Interpretation" (from last season) of this situation made it into the NFHS Points Of Emphasis, but didn't make it into the actual rulebook:

NFHS 2015-16 POINTS OF EMPHASIS

3. FREE THROW SHOOTER

Rule 9-1-3g was revised in 2014-15 to allow a player occupying a marked lane space to enter the lane on the release of the ball by the free thrower. As a result of this change, protection of the free thrower needs to be emphasized. On release of the ball by the free thrower, the defender boxing out shall not cross the free-throw line extended into the semicircle until the ball contacts the ring or backboard. A player, other than the free thrower, who does not occupy a marked lane space, may not have either foot beyond the vertical plane of the free-throw line extended and the three-point line which is farther from the basket until the ball touches the ring or backboard or until the free throw ends.

Maybe there will be a case play that will explain this further?

(Note: IAABO is red boldfaced below to emphasize that these are IAABO interpretations from last season, not NFHS interpretations.)

From January/February 2015 IAABO Sportorial Magazine:

Violation if a player legally enters the free throw lane and then breaks the outside edge of the free throw line, with a foot/feet, prior to the ball contacting the backboard or basket ring. Display the delay lane violation signal, pending successful or unsuccessful free throw.

From IAABO Board 403, Catawba River (South Carolina) Basketball Officials Association, Play of the Week, from last season:

Play #2 - A-1 is attempting a free throw. After A-1 releases the ball, B-4, from a marked lane space, boxes out A-1 by stepping across the free throw line before the ball contacts the ring and making incidental contact with the shooter. The free throw is unsuccessful. The Center official rules a violation on B-4 and awards A-1 a substitute free throw. Was the official correct?
Answer: The official was correct. The rule change this season allows players in marked lane spaces to enter the lane upon the release of the free throw. However, no player may penetrate the free throw line in either direction until the ball contacts the ring or backboard. (References: Rule 9.1.3g, NFHS Interpretation)

Or, maybe we'll be debating this situation for another entire season.

To paraphrase the late Jurassic Referee: Stupid IAABO. Stupid NFHS. Stupid monkeys.

[Rich]

While you're wringing your hands over this, I'll simply go work games.

Shrug.

[deecee]

Originally Posted by rich

while you're wringing your hands over this, i'll simply go work games.

Shrug.

+1

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Rich

While you're wringing your hands over this, I'll simply go work games.

Shrug.

But will you (by POE) call it a violation, or (by rule) call nothing unless a foul is committed?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

But will you (by POE) call it a violation, or (by rule) call nothing unless a foul is committed?

The NF is not infallible For God's sake. They clearly made a mistake. Just move on if you ask me. People kill me as if they cannot use some common sense in these situations.

Peace

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

The NF is not infallible For God's sake. They clearly made a mistake. Just move on if you ask me. People kill me as if they cannot use some common sense in these situations.

Peace

OK, then which way are you calling it? It is a valid question. Either option could make sense.

Or, do by "move on if you ask me" mean you're going to ignore it?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

OK, then which way are you calling it? It is a valid question. Either option could make sense.

Or, do by "move on if you ask me" mean you're going to ignore it?

What does the rule say?

There is your answer. I do not give a darn what a POE says that will be gone the following year.

To me this what like when the NF several years ago used the term "moving screen" in their wording in a POE but never mentioned how that was not a rulebook term or even applied to the rule. Then the next year the POE was gone and the rule never was changed. Funny we have not heard or seen that kind of wording about screens sense.

Peace

[john5396]

Fed did this to us in baseball a couple of years ago. POE to call balk for pitching from the "combination position" (half way between stretch and wind up) with no change in rule. One of the combination cases was already illegal, the other was completely legal.

Fed changes the rule the next year to align with the POE.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

OK, then which way are you calling it? It is a valid question. Either option could make sense.

Or, do by "move on if you ask me" mean you're going to ignore it?

I'll call a violation if it feels like it needs to be called. How's that?

[OKREF]

First time it happens, tell the kid not to do it. Tell the coach that it is a violation and that the POE says to call it one. After that, I doubt it will happen again, if it does, call a violation and it will stop.