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

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

I've been going to message boards for as long as the internet was a thing. You only quote somebody if you are referring to them. Otherwise, find the person you want to refer to and quote them, or there's a button for a general reply below.

I'm not sensitive, I'm confused as to why you replied to me when you were apparently talking about someone else.

Misquote? No. I didn't say I was talking to coaches. I said what I WOULDN'T say to a coach and it was twisted.

With that said, I appreciate your advice on this board. Thank you.

And I quote a lot of people in the context in the bigger conversation too. I do not always quote people just to challenge or highlight their statements alone. Now if you only quote people to only speak to them, I guess. I do not always do that neither does everyone else. I have been quoted many times to highlight other people's comments, my comments just happened to be the last one about the topic they read.

I really do not see why your panties are in a bunch about this. You said that is not what you meant or your position. I am not disputing what you said or even disputing your position. I take you at your word. I am not arguing that you said something and I "gotcha" with the quote. You do not even have to prove your position to me either. My advice or comments are not that deep. I was giving an opinion on a position previously stated, your comments happened to be about those comments and stated my position. It is not like your reputation is going to be ruined because I commented or took a position with you being quoted. The only way I can see your response to all of this is being sensitive. Sorry, but that is my take because I have said this many times before that this incessant need to talk to coaches about calls and I am suggesting this is over the top from my point of view. If that is not what you meant or feel, than consider yourself absolved from my comments. And if that is what you are saying, you have the right to disagree with my position. It is not as big of a deal as you are making it. No one is accusing you of anything. I am not in a position to accuse you of anything.

Peace

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BigCat

Just SHUT UP. Bryan is a kid and you are not.

I do not know what Bryan is or isn't. If he is an official he has to get bigger skin or this is going to get a lot harder than what is said here. I work with kids that have much bigger ways to handle themselves and take the comments in stride. I will not shut up at all. If you do not like the post, you did not have to comment in the first place.

Telling someone to shut up also is something we did in kindergarten too.

Peace

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BigCat

I have NO patience for a bully.

Please, save the drama fo you mama!!! Seriously.

Peace

[Welpe]

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

[Rich1]

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.

[BryanV21]

Originally Posted by Rich1

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

[Rich1]

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.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

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 my question is: why is it a violation?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Rich1

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.

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).

9-1-3d. No player shall enter a marked lane space or leave a marked lane space by contacting the court outside the 36-inch by 36-inch space until the ball is released.

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...

9-1-3c. No opponent shall disconcert the free thrower.

ART. 4 . . . The restrictions in 9-1-3b and c apply until the ball touches the ring or backboard or until the free throw ends.

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.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

I just can't bring myself to not care about this. It seems like a big deal to me.

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

Originally Posted by Rich

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.

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

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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...

9-1-3c. No opponent shall disconcert the free thrower.

ART. 4 . . . The restrictions in 9-1-3b and c apply until the ball touches the ring or backboard or until the free throw ends.

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.

Nice citation Camron Rust. The plot thickens.

[Rich1]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

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.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

IMO disconcertion --to disturb or disrupt--- is a "cause and effect" situation. Defense does something that causes shooter to 1. miss the shot OR 2. otherwise violate. The obvious one-- the defender waves arms and we believe it disturbed shooter=disconcertion. Once the shot is in the air the things the defense does will not cause the shot to be missed.
However, we know the shooter cant cross line until ball hits ring. I suppose the defense can do something to cause the shooter to cross the line. So they can "disconcert" after the ball is in the air---although ive never see it or called it.

Here, if the defense crosses the free throw line it is not likely to cause the shot to be missed since the ball will likely be released already. It could possible cause the FT shooter to cross the line too soon. But if the ball is released on the shot, then defender crosses line and blocks shooter back a few feet the defender has not caused the shot to be missed or caused the FT shooter to violate. I dont see that as "disconcertion." The POE simply says crossing the line is a violation. I dont think that = disconcertion.

And just to add--if im shooting a Ft and the defender steps on the lane line before i release the ball he has violated. We put up delayed violation signal. If i shoot an air ball the official has to decide if defender stepping on the line cause my airball--did it disconcert me? If it didnt--i just cant shoot...then we have a double violation. I think this shows that disconcertion requires the defense to do something which "causes" the offense to miss shot or violate etc.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

...


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.

Good catch...is that new wording or has it been in there for a while? I have never noticed it.