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

[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.

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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.

This is from the NFHS Preseason Guide. I got my copy last week with my rule, case and mechanics books.

The free thrower is not allowed to cross the free-throw line until the ball makes contact with the backboard or the basket. That same rule applies to any other player. 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 to be a foul, it must be a technical foul since the violation caused the ball to become dead.

[BryanV21]

Originally Posted by OKREF

This is from the NFHS Preseason Guide. I got my copy last week with my rule, case and mechanics books.

The free thrower is not allowed to cross the free-throw line until the ball makes contact with the backboard or the basket. That same rule applies to any other player. 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 to be a foul, it must be a technical foul since the violation caused the ball to become dead.

Yes, we saw that. But it clearly is an error, due to the fact that the ball is not dead until the try ends.

This is not something from the rulebook, therefore it's not gospel.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by OKREF

...

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 to be a foul, it must be a technical foul since the violation caused the ball to become dead.

And you don't see anything wrong with that verbiage?

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

And you don't see anything wrong with that verbiage?

I don't recall ever saying that it was right. I was just relaying what was printed, and I also believe I said we will have to wait and see if we get clarification from the NFHS.