Also the POE specifically says incidental contact. You can't really call a foul on incidental contact.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Now that we've established we're not children, can we all chill out?

Just do it...
 

I don't think its as complicated as some are making it. The rules say players may enter the "lane" on release. The semi-circle is NOT part of the lane. The POE is clarifying that when NFHS changed the rule they did not intend for players other than the shooter be in this space.

If the defender steps into the semi-circle I will call the violation, the first time and every time (assuming a missed shot of course). It is not that difficult to block out without crossing that line so they will have to adjust to how it is being called or continue to get violations.

As for contact, I called several fouls this last year when defenders displaced the free throw shooter. Coaches never liked it but if you move ANY player backwards out of their position during rebounding action it is by definition a foul.

But how can it be a foul (assuming it's not a flagrant)? As soon as the defender crosses the free throw line it's a violation, so a foul (again, assuming it's not flagrant) would be ignored.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

Because I said so?????
 

The defender will most likely cross that line while the ball is in flight so the violation will be delayed to see if the basket is made. While the ball is in flight it is considered "live" so any contact that rises to the level above incidental but below flagrant/intentional would be a foul. However, like with all dead ball contact, if the contact does not occur until after the try has ended then it would be ignored unless deemed to be flagrant or intentional.

Seems odd that you could have a play be either a foul or a violation, not one or the other. But I hear you.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

So my question is: why is it a violation?

Maybe it has something to with a "stick up my butt" mentality, but that reply is simply too cavalier for me. Of course, we're all going to go work games. Nobody's turning back his schedule because (once again) we're instructed to call something that contradicts our rulebook.

But that doesn't do anything to decide exactly how to call this play. By rule, there's no violation for crossing the FT line before the try hits the ring or backboard. So why in the world would I call it?

And this is not a criticism of you personally, Rich. I think you know that I have tremendous respect for you, both on and off of this forum. I just can't bring myself to not care about this. It seems like a big deal to me.

Read earlier in this thread and you'll see why.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

OK, being serious for a moment.

I just think it's sloppy on the part of the NFHS. I think they missed the rule reference -- the POE makes it very clear that it's expected that this be a violation. They just didn't put the rule back into the rule book.

When they went back to the "on the release" I was stunned they didn't address this -- cause it was a rule when the "on the release" free throws were eliminated in the 1990s.

Actually, the rule doesn't even say they can't enter the lane until the release. It only says they can't leave their lane space until the release. There is no reference to which direction they leave it or where they go to. The rule has no restrictions on location once the ball is released (for players in a marked lane space).

All that said, I just noticed something interesting in the rule that does give support to the POE. Look at these other parts of the rule...

I have never considered it to be possible to disconcert after the ball has been released but the rules do allow for it. So, you could consider crossing the FT line to be disconcertion and have it supported by the rules. If so, it really isn't about what areas are restricted or not but really simply about interfering with the shooter during his protected time frame....disconcertion. Of course, if that is the case, a player doesn't even have to cross into the FT semi-circle to do that. :D

Stupid Monkeys (Jurassic Referee) ...
 

I also care about this. Maybe it's not a big deal to me, but it's still a deal.

"... Sloppy on the part of the NFHS"? None of us should act surprised (see team control/throwin/backcourt).

https://sp.yimg.com/ib/th?id=JN.ydNC...=0&w=300&h=300

Nice citation Camron Rust. The plot thickens.

https://sp.yimg.com/ib/th?id=JN.BntS...=0&w=300&h=300

I've been following along the whole time, Bryan. My point is that it's NOT actually a violation, according the rules. That's what I'm getting at. Yet we're told in the POE to call a violation. Once again, we're being told to call the game contrary to the actual rules. This bothers me tremendously.

That's what this entire conversation is about. So I'm not sure why you're asking.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

Since Cameron has now provided a rules basis for the interpretation perhaps the focus of this conversation should switch from should you call it (yes you should) to how it should be applied.

And if you are still on the fence about a player being disconcerted after the release, consider this: A players is stepping up to the line for his 10th free throw of the game (its been a rough one). As part of his routine he holds his follow-through for an extended period of time and remains focused until the ball hits the rim. During the first nine free throws he took a defender crosses the line and is in his space during this follow through process before the ball hits the rim. Could this disruption of the shooter's process be enough to disconcert him, causing him to adjust what he normally does and effectively taking away the advantage a free throw is supposed to award him? BTW, this would not apply to a regular shot because the same expectations for awarding the shooter an opportunity to take a shot without interference do not exist.

I can see this along with Cameron's rule reference as an argument for the POE.