Well, I for one am vaery interested in reading about the "FT contact" issues that will arise in the various games that we do--I guess starting this Friday the season for most interscholastic games.

Automatic (Pointer Sisters, 1984) ...
 

Do we now have another "it's always a foul; forget everything you ever learned about advantage/disadvantage/incidental" scenario?

9-2-10-Penalty-4: If an opponent(s) contacts the thrower, an intentional personal foul shall
be charged to the offender.

9.2.10 SITUATION B: Team A has a (a) designated spot throw-in, or (b) alternating-
possession throw-in along the end line. Thrower A1 extends the ball with
his/her arms over the end line such that part of the forearms, hands, and the ball
are entirely on the inbounds side of the boundary line. B2 slaps A1 on the wrist
and dislodges the ball. RULING: In (a) and (b), when a defender makes contact
with a thrower-in, the result is an intentional foul. Where A1’s arms are located
(on the inbounds or out-of-bounds side of the boundary line) is immaterial. A1 is
awarded two free throws and Team A awarded a throw-in at the spot nearest the
foul. In (b), since the throw-in did not end, the arrow remains with Team A.

Curiously, as I've pointed out on this forum before, there is currently no rule in the NFHS rules book directing the official to award this first FT for common fouls 7, 8, and 9. You will only find a rule stating to award the bonus FT if the first one is successful. :(

From the 2015-16 NFHS Preseason Guide on page 6:
"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."

Thanks Nevadaref ...
 

This is a major interpretation, that makes a lot of sense.

Why haven't we heard about this before?

Is this a NFHS, or a Referee magazine, interpretation?

While Referee Magazine publishes the document the bottom of the first page contains the line, "Published by Referee in cooperation with the NFHS."

Several of the articles are written by contributors from various states and mostly they are uncredited. This makes it difficult to attribute anything in the document to a specific source.

Also, some of what is written can be phrased better and sometimes a few things are just flat out incorrect. :(

My rules interpreter and I had a long telephone conversation about this the other night. He didn't want to "take an association position" on how our officials should apply judgment in this situation because positions and judgment are contradictory.

Instead, he said, "focus on the rule." I took that to also mean, "focus on the POE." The impression I got was to err on the side of incidental, and anything greater than that is probably at least an intentional personal considering the defenders are not allowed by rule to be in the semi-circle in the first place. In other words, there isn't much desire for common fouls to be called here. The violation should speak for itself, and if the shooter gets taken out, intentional personal (or in an unusual case an intentional technical if the ball happened to already be dead when the contact occurred).

We ended the conversation by talking about how all of this can be minimized if not eliminated by two means: A) making it part of the pre-game conference, at least early in the season, and B) consistently calling it early and often in games. After a few substitute free throws, the coach will quickly recalibrate his/her philosophy.

That's the best written interp I have seen.


Ironically, I had to call the violation in my game last night...even after talking to the coaches pre-game about it AND telling the players prior to the 1n1. :p

We pre-gamed this last night in a Varsity G tourney. FWIW they seem to be the bigger offenders IMO. So since the C has added ephesis on this POE we had the T close down a little more and help out with rebounding action. Got a violation early and it all took care of itself after that.

Don't Hang Your Hat On It ...
 

I like it too, and would love for it to be the NFHS rule of the land, but I believe that it's from Referee magazine so you should probably take it with a grain of salt. Referee has rarely, but occasionally, been in disagreement with the NFHS in the past.

This is the official NFHS interpretation

SITUATION 1: The opponent makes contact with the free-throw shooter before the free throw reaches the basket. The free throw is missed. RULING: The official should rule a violation on the opponent and a personal foul. (9-1-2g Penalty 2b)

SITUATION 2: After A1 releases the ball on a free throw try, B1 steps into the lane and backs across the free- throw line to box out the free-throw shooter then makes contact with the free-throw shooter. The free throw is missed. RULING: The official should rule a delayed violation on the opponent. A1 will be awarded a substitute free throw and the contact is ruled a foul. The substitute free throw would be administered with the free-throw lane spaces unoccupied. (9-1-2g Penalty 2b)