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

[Camron Rust]

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

WOW!!!!

OK, "too soon". is poor wording since "too soon" is not defined but I know what they meant.

However, there is a huge problem with that ruling....

It can not be a technical foul. The ball isn't dead at the time of the violation. It is a "delayed" violation. The ball remains live until the shot is made or missed. The delayed nature of the violation doesn't retroactively make the ball dead, it is as if the violation occurred when/after the shot is missed.

If the ball were to be dead at the time a defender illegally crosses a into the lane or into the semi-circle, there would be no way a FT shooter could ever make a shot on a defensive violation.

If the shot is missed before the defender enters the semi-circle, it can't be a violation (unless they just entered the lane early) and the ball would be live...meaning it wouldn't be a technical.

The really need to rethink this one.