POE - FT Shooter Contact

[RefsNCoaches]

Originally Posted by Freddy

Check with your state or local association. Some states are mandating what you quoted from the nfhs: "any contact must be ruled a personal foul" and others are expecting that contact be more than incidental to be considered a foul. I have not heard what Indiana expects.

BTW...your first game is today and you are JUST NOW looking into this???

Jr High games today...Of course I talked with guys I work with about it... And most I have spoke with are in the camp of a little more than incidental.

Have always appreciated the info I gather from this site in the past.

[RefsNCoaches]

I guess like any new POE, players will adjust. It just seems crazy for a violation and a PF cause as a coach(AAU and Travel)...I want my kids boxing out the shooter!

[Raymond]

I know folks here aren't going ignore what the NFHS has clearly stated it wants.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

I know folks here aren't going ignore what the NFHS has clearly stated it wants.

I think that's accurate -- if the State hasn't said otherwise.

And, I don't think anyone has ever said "if the State says "Y" when the NFHS says "X", do 'X'"

Honestly, these posts almost make me long for the "in my little corner we wear belts" posts.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

I think that's accurate -- if the State hasn't said otherwise.

And, I don't think anyone has ever said "if the State says "Y" when the NFHS says "X", do 'X'"

Honestly, these posts almost make me long for the "in my little corner we wear belts" posts.

Did I forget my blue font?

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk

[deecee]

Our association has instructed us to go with a violation unless the contact is severe enough that we would normally call a foul. IOW, NOT ALL contact is a foul. The stupid thing about this stupid ruling is that you could have a FT with lanes cleared and then adjudicated additional FT's with players on the lane.

I didn't know boxing out the FT shooter was such a rampant issue that the NFHS had to overly complicate this.

[egj13]

Originally Posted by deecee

I didn't know boxing out the FT shooter was such a rampant issue that the NFHS had to overly complicate this.

"Protection of the free thrower..." Its the new world we live in.

[RefsNCoaches]

Originally Posted by egj13

"Protection of the free thrower..." Its the new world we live in.

Hahah....I guess I could make an argument that it negates advantage of the defense getting body into shooter during flight since shooter can't go until contact. But yeah, I didn't know it was that much of a problem either...

[Refhoop]

When the NFHS implements two throws for all bonus shots, we won't have to see this as frequently.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by RefsNCoaches

Hahah....I guess I could make an argument that it negates advantage of the defense getting body into shooter during flight since shooter can't go until contact. But yeah, I didn't know it was that much of a problem either...

Not only should it not be a problem, anybody employing this tactic is displaying a low basketball IQ. B3 and B4 get to enter the lane long before A1 can enter the lane. They would already be in front of A1, and A1 would be responsible for any illegal contact.

I question the intelligence of any coach who tells his/her players to do this.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by deecee

Our association has instructed us to go with a violation unless the contact is severe enough that we would normally call a foul. IOW, NOT ALL contact is a foul. The stupid thing about this stupid ruling is that you could have a FT with lanes cleared and then adjudicated additional FT's with players on the lane.

I didn't know boxing out the FT shooter was such a rampant issue that the NFHS had to overly complicate this.

Same...if the contact is enough for a foul, call it a foul.

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by RefsNCoaches

...I talked with guys I work with about it... And most I have spoke with are in the camp of a little more than incidental...

So, are you going to go with a local consensus of "guys"? Or what your state expects of you?

Hey Arem, can you help this fellow Indiana official with what your state says on this issue?

[so cal lurker]

Originally Posted by RefsNCoaches

Jr High games today...Of course I talked with guys I work with about it... And most I have spoke with are in the camp of a little more than incidental.

Have always appreciated the info I gather from this site in the past.

What to worry about -- they don't block out in Jr. High anyway, so this won't come up.

[RefsNCoaches]

Originally Posted by so cal lurker

What to worry about -- they don't block out in Jr. High anyway, so this won't come up.

Hey now...the girls I coached DID!

Now I'm back to 4th graders (step-daughter is playing) and having to teach it all over! Man, I miss kids with some BBIQ!