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

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

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.

[BryanV21]

Originally Posted by OKREF

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.

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

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by OKREF

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.

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

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

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

Agree completely.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

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

But that isn't anything new, with or without it being a violation for crossing the FT line.

A contact foul after the ball is dead is either incidental or a technical (ignoring airborne shooter situations).

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

But that isn't anything new, with or without it being a violation for crossing the FT line.

A contact foul after the ball is dead is either incidental or a technical (ignoring airborne shooter situations).

He is just pointing out what the poe should have said.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BigCat

He is just pointing out what the poe should have said.

Maybe it could have said that, but it would be irrelevant. I think you two are giving the person who wrote that too much credit. I think they meant what it says. The context and tone of the rest of it supports that.

In any case, even if it did mean to say that, it would still be wrong.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Maybe it could have said that, but it would be irrelevant. I think you two are giving the person who wrote that too much credit. I think they meant what it says. The context and tone of the rest of it supports that.

In any case, even if it did mean to say that, it would still be wrong.

The first sentence of the relevant part set forth above says contact more than incidental is a personal foul. The third sentence says technical foul. I think it is clear they meant to say contact after the shot is missed is technical. (they could just be knuckleheads)

The POE is wrong because there is no rule which says crossing FT line is a violation. However, if we accept that there is going to be such a rule, the way Bob has amended the POE would be correct and a true statement. Crossing the line and making more than incidental contact while FT in air/has chance to go in is personal foul. Contact after shot is clearly not successful is ignored unless intentional or flagrant(technical).

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BigCat

The first sentence of the relevant part set forth above says contact more than incidental is a personal foul. The third sentence says technical foul. I think it is clear they meant to say contact after the shot is missed is technical. (they could just be knuckleheads)

And that is wrong.

Originally Posted by BigCat

The POE is wrong because there is no rule which says crossing FT line is a violation. However, if we accept that there is going to be such a rule, the way Bob has amended the POE would be correct and a true statement. Crossing the line and making more than incidental contact while FT in air/has chance to go in is personal foul. Contact after shot is clearly not successful is ignored unless intentional or flagrant(technical).

The red statement is correct.
But that isn't what it said. It said that contact after the ball is dead is a technical if it isn't incidental. It takes more than not being incidental, as you properly stated, to become a technical.

The statement can't be made right by changing just one or two words. It is wrong in too many ways. It was just published without thinking.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by OKREF

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.

So we have a POE that doesn't have a corresponding rule and also incorrectly states the ball is dead.

But I'm supposed to be confident that they know what they want.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

So we have a POE that doesn't have a corresponding rule and also incorrectly states the ball is dead.

But I'm supposed to be confident that they know what they want.

And if you are unclear, you are ignoring the statement when there clearly is a rule.

Sorry, but that is silly talk if that is the expectation. That is why I will be asking for clarification from my state. What they ultimately tell us to do, I will advocate right or wrong.

Peace

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by OKREF

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.

Unfortunately, that is dead wrong. To prove it, consider the following: A1 is attempting a FT. B1 in a marked lane space enters the lane prior to the release. We know that this is a delayed violation. However, if the attempt is successful the try counts and the violation is ignored. If the ball were to become dead, then no point could be scored BY RULE as goals are only possible when a live ball enters the basket from above. Therefore, we can be certain that the ball remains live during the FT attempt when there is a delayed violation. Thus any foul committed during this time is a personal foul.

Anyone instructing otherwise is a silly monkey.

[Nevadaref]

Furthermore, not all violations cause the ball to immediately become dead. For example, when there is a try in flight, a leaving the court violation by the defense or an excessive swing of arms/elbows violation does not cause the ball to become dead and any foul which occurs thereafter, but prior to the end of the try or is committed by or on the airborne shooter is a live ball, personal foul.

[APG]

After hearing the process in which NFHS goes about discussing/making rules changes....especially compared to NCAA....this all really comes off as someone implementing a backdoor way to make a rule change.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by OKREF

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.

I have not seen the actual text of the POE or the preseason guide yet. Does it really say if the contact "isn't incidental" during a dead ball period that it is a technical foul?
I ask because that is wrong. It should say if the contact is intentional or flagrant, then it needs to be ruled a technical foul if it occurs after the FT has ended. We have a clear rule that instructs officials to ignore common fouls (which are by definition not incidental contact) when the ball is dead.