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

[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.