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

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Not exactly. The rules do not say what it is and that is the overall problem. You cannot say it is a violation when no where in Rule 8 or 9 says it is a violation. Someone did not do read their rules before publishing such a statement in the first place. Just like during football this year there were several mistakes in the NF/NASO Guidebook that people in our state read and kept trying to highlight. So again, the NF did not change anything. They just made a mistake and have not corrected it. I do not understand why that is hard to grasp here when nothing in the rulebook says this is any kind of violation of the rules.

Peace

Agree, I was posting under the assumption that, as someone else said, a correction to the rule is forthcoming to cover that. The whole point of my post, however, was not whether this was a violation or not but about the fact that a defensive violation of any kind on a FT doesn't make the ball dead as the ruling posted above suggests.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Agree, I was posting under the assumption that, as someone else said, a correction to the rule is forthcoming to cover that. The whole point of my post, however, was not whether this was a violation or not but about the fact that a defensive violation of any kind on a FT doesn't make the ball dead as the ruling posted above suggests.

POEs are often clarified (by the state) as to how they want those things handled. Nothing new there at all. But as stated before, most of the time there is a direct rule to reference. There is no rule in this case, but a statement about something being illegal when it clearly is not. So some new officials is not going to know or realize this was ever illegal or the significance of a POE in the first place.

Peace

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Not exactly. The rules do not say what it is and that is the overall problem. You cannot say it is a violation when no where in Rule 8 or 9 says it is a violation. Someone did not do read their rules before publishing such a statement in the first place. Just like during football this year there were several mistakes in the NF/NASO Guidebook that people in our state read and kept trying to highlight. So again, the NF did not change anything. They just made a mistake and have not corrected it. I do not understand why that is hard to grasp here when nothing in the rulebook says this is any kind of violation of the rules.

Peace

If the NFHS didn't want this penalized, then why would they put out a POE saying to call the violation. It's pretty clear to me that they want it penalized, and just failed to change the rule book. Like I said earlier, we've already been instructed by our state to call the violation, and until I get further information that's what I will do.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by OKREF

If the NFHS didn't want this penalized, then why would they put out a POE saying to call the violation. It's pretty clear to me that they want it penalized, and just failed to change the rule book. Like I said earlier, we've already been instructed by our state to call the violation, and until I get further information that's what I will do.

I do not care what they want, I care what I can prove. And I cannot prove something in a part of the book that does not include a section and an article.

And like I said we have not been instructed to call anything extra. Time will tell, but something tells me this will not be advocated unless the NF comes out with a clarification.

Peace

[SAJ]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

In the NFHS/OHSAA (Ohio High School Athletic Association) preseason guide for 2015-2016 there is an article about this.

"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 a foul, it must be a technical foul since the violation caused the ball to be dead."

So we'll either have nothing, a violation, or a technical foul.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

So, A1 is shooting a free throw. If any B player causes a delayed violation and there is a foul by anyone before the end of the free throw it's a technical foul?

That's a new one.

[JRutledge]

I just got the NF Preseason Guide for 2015-2016 and on page 6 it addresses this situation.

A couple of observations, no mention in the Guide that this is a POE. I found that interesting.

Secondly it talks about a player on the lane line crossing the FT line is a violation and should be a delayed violation if done by the defense and a emphasis on if the shot goes you ignore the violation and if the shot is missed you call the violation. But it does not give any rules reference for that violation of the rules. They have two pictures. Picture A shows the "violation" I just mentioned. Then Picture B shows a violation by a teammate of the FT shooter coming into the center circle from behind the lane line and then gives a rules reference (9-1-3f).

Peace

This is clearly a problem and a huge oversight. Again, no rule says that this is a violation for the players on the lane line.

[Rich]

Those of you willing to ignore this simply because they missed it in the rules book are doing so in the face of ignoring what the NFHS clearly wants.

And it seems as though a few of you are doing this cause you think it's unnecessary or stupid to have this requirement.

I was at a meeting Monday night -- this is in the NFHS-written slide deck and was pretty prominent. They feel that because the shooter is not allow to cross over the line that no defender should be able to go into his area until the restrictions end for the shooter.

It will be fixed, but exactly *why* do you want to ignore something that the NFHS so *clearly* wants?

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by Rich

Those of you willing to ignore this simply because they missed it in the rules book are doing so in the face of ignoring what the NFHS clearly wants.

And it seems as though a few of you are doing this cause you think it's unnecessary or stupid to have this requirement.

I was at a meeting Monday night -- this is in the NFHS-written slide deck and was pretty prominent. They feel that because the shooter is not allow to cross over the line that no defender should be able to go into his area until the restrictions end for the shooter.

It will be fixed, but exactly *why* do you want to ignore something that the NFHS so *clearly* wants?

I agree Rich, restrictions are already in place for the shooter and people behind the 3 point arc about entering and exiting the free throw semi circle. All they are doing is making it consistent.

My only question is, does the delayed violation cause the ball to become dead?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Rich

Those of you willing to ignore this simply because they missed it in the rules book are doing so in the face of ignoring what the NFHS clearly wants.

And it seems as though a few of you are doing this cause you think it's unnecessary or stupid to have this requirement.

I was at a meeting Monday night -- this is in the NFHS-written slide deck and was pretty prominent. They feel that because the shooter is not allow to cross over the line that no defender should be able to go into his area until the restrictions end for the shooter.

It will be fixed, but exactly *why* do you want to ignore something that the NFHS so *clearly* wants?

I think you are wrong on many levels here. This is not about ignoring something, this is about rules supporting calling something. Just like all the targeting information in football that came from other sources telling everyone what the rules meant and my state had to remind everyone of what the actual rules stated.

This also happened for the record this has happened before (not just basketball) in the NF Guidebooks before where the Guide says one thing and the Rulebook says something else on the same topic and usually our state takes the position, "Call what is in the rulebook and the Guide is wrong." That happen this year in Football Guide and the higher ups pointed out 5 to 7 obvious mistakes from their point of view. The state brass did not need anyone to tell them to make that statement, they did so on their own or among each other and told the rest of the the state their position. Well in this case, I know I will ask our Head Clinician/Rules Interpreter when the time come and see what he and the state administrator has to say. And I will do what they suggest.

Not everyone reads the Guide as it often covers issues that are not rules based. It has only been the last few years that the IHSA stated sending this book to us as they do not send us a rulebook to us every year.

Peace

[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

[OKREF]

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

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.

[BryanV21]

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.

But it's a delayed violation. The ball isn't dead until the try is unsuccessful and then it becomes a violation. Chances are you'll have a foul before the ball is dead/violation... So no dead ball tech.

I'm not aware of being able to have a retroactive violation,which would allow a dead ball tech.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

[bob jenkins]

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.

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."

[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.

[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).