POE - FT Shooter Contact

[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.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Refhoop

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

FYI, the first shot isn't a bonus, it is just a FT. Only the 2nd shot is the bonus....as a reward for making the first one. When they made it 2 shots on 10 fouls, the 2nd shot was an "automatic" bonus. Many erroneously call it the double bonus, but, technically, that is not accurate.

Of course, despite that, everyone knows what it means and I even use the term because that is the commonly used term for it now, but that still doesn't change the facts of what the words originally meant.

[Refhoop]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

FYI, the first shot isn't a bonus, it is just a FTs. Only the 2nd shot is the bonus....as a reward for making the first one. When they made it 2 shots on 10 fouls, the 2nd shot was an "automatic" bonus. Many erroneously call it the double bonus, but, technically, that is not accurate.

Of course, despite that, everyone knows what it means and I even use the term because that is the commonly used term for it now, but that still doesn't change the facts of what the words originally meant.

Thanks for the correction!
Let's still get rid of the "one & one".

[egj13]

Originally Posted by Refhoop

Let's still get rid of the "one & one".

Don't get rid of the "one and one"!! I would hate to see what the signal would be for "bonus"

[BatteryPowered]

It has been suggested to us by our rules guru that should there be contact with the thrower perhaps we should look at it logically. As soon as any part of the defenders body breaks the plane of the FT line a violation has occurred. Unless the contact by the defender is so severe that we would deem it to rise to the level of an intentional foul it is more logical to go with what happened first...the violation. If the throw is missed the thrower gets a replacement throw and if it is made we move on.

Guess how we are going to handle this POE?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by BatteryPowered

It has been suggested to us by our rules guru that should there be contact with the thrower perhaps we should look at it logically. As soon as any part of the defenders body breaks the plane of the FT line a violation has occurred. Unless the contact by the defender is so severe that we would deem it to rise to the level of an intentional foul it is more logical to go with what happened first...the violation. If the throw is missed the thrower gets a replacement throw and if it is made we move on.

Guess how we are going to handle this POE?

I get the "do what your assigner says" ;logic -- but your "rules guru" could use some help.

[Kansas Ref]

At a recent "rules meeting" woman posed an interesting question: "A1 is shooting the 1st FT of a "one plus"; shot goes in and then B1 boxes out/obvious contact to A1 by B1--ostensibly a reflex type of reaction by B1--since the ball became 'dead' after the FT was made and the block out contact was made afterwards--is that a 'dead ball foul', ergo a "technical foul" or is the whole affair just ignored ?

[RefsNCoaches]

Originally Posted by egj13

Don't get rid of the "one and one"!! I would hate to see what the signal would be for "bonus"

Ohhhh, the fans and any wreck league won't EVER let "AND1" die...every shot there has to be "AND1"

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by egj13

Don't get rid of the "one and one"!! I would hate to see what the signal would be for "bonus"

I think he was suggesting that all fouls be 2 shots (not counting made baskets) and eliminate not the term of "one and one" but the actual situation behind it.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

FYI, the first shot isn't a bonus, it is just a FT. Only the 2nd shot is the bonus....as a reward for making the first one. When they made it 2 shots on 10 fouls, the 2nd shot was an "automatic" bonus. Many erroneously call it the double bonus, but, technically, that is not accurate.

Of course, despite that, everyone knows what it means and I even use the term because that is the commonly used term for it now, but that still doesn't change the facts of what the words originally meant.

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.

[Nevadaref]

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."

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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."

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?

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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.

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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."

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.