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.

NF Preseason Guide
 

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.

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?

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

Well then put that in your rules. These are not restrictions at other levels. So the only level that would be "consistent" on this would be the NF. The NBA for example has no such restriction after the release and the NCAA has no such rule about players on the lane. That is the problem here. You have a special restriction that is in no other code and assume that without a rule that most people would even realize this would be a violation. You cannot do that if you claim you want consistency.

Peace

Exactly. The NFHS is the only rule set I was talking about. This new POE makes it consistent in the NFHS code when dealing with free throw semi circle violations. I wasn't referring to being consistent with the other rule sets. The NFHS clearly wants this called a violation, or they wouldn't have made it a point of emphasis. For whatever reason the rule wasn't changed in the rulebook, either by an editing mistake, oversight by the rules committee. It could have been a number of things.

They sure must not have wanted it bad enough if they forgot to even check the rulebook to make sure it was there.

Never said they were smart! More than likely they just assumed it was there. Hopefully we will get a bullet point from the NFHS regarding this, until then I will just do what we've been instructed here.

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.

This was a rule for 4 years, removed ONLY because it was made irrelevant by the change to the free throw restrictions in the late 90s.

I'm confident that this will be addressed in the clarifications. And some people will *still* ignore it because it's "not in the rule book."

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

Well again the NF has had this problem before. This was basically an old rule, but a current rule in the NCAA and NBA on some level and they took the rule from those levels and wanted to apply to the NF without using their rules.

Look this happened in football a few years ago. The rule for a Horse-collar was implemented after it was a rule at both the NFL and NCAA created their individual rules which had different exceptions (which are not necessary to discuss). Well the intent of the rule was one thing, but they way they worded it was totally different and confusing. Not to get too deep, but they said that you could only Horse-collar a runner, well a runner had a definition. You must have the ball during a live ball. Well if a player fumbled or went out of bounds, they were no longer a runner by definition. Because of this oversight, there were places that had to either take a harder line or they said that a "Horse-collar" could not be called in certain situation when a player no longer was a runner. This kind of oversight we had a Rules Interpreter in football say, "It takes the National Federation 3 years to get a rule right." Well we are in year two of this new rule and it is clear that they will have to use rule three to get this right if this is the implementation. I see this also as this incessant need by the NF to be so different, they play games with their rules and wording instead of just taking on what works at the other levels. Even the hand-checking rule they had to play games with the wording and what do we do here? Argue over the meaning or differences.

When in football they first implemented the Horse-Collar Rule it caused a lot of confusion and inconsistency and arguing at places like this and states did what they felt was best, which is all I am saying needs to be done here. I never said to ignore anything. I just think we need to clarify how and when we call this. Also it is a problem when people have suggested technical fouls or awarding a simple violation just like they did in football when the difference between a dead ball foul and a live ball foul can be a huge difference. This has to be clarified by either the NF or the state organizations on some level or will will keep having this discussion in the manner. It has nothing to do with ignoring a POE.

Peace

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 <s>the</s> subsequent contact is ruled a foul, it must be a technical foul since the violation caused the ball to be dead."