POE - FT Shooter Contact
 

Have my first contest of the year tonight...Would like input on this from you guys on this.

NFHS Reads:
Players who occupy free throw lane line marked spaces during
free throws may enter the free-throw lane upon the free thrower releasing
the ball; however, should a defensive player cross the free-throw line too
soon, it is a violation. A delayed violation signal is to be displayed. If the
free throw is successful, the violation is ignored.
If a defender contacts the free thrower, a personal foul is the correct
ruling. If the free throw is unsuccessful, the violation is enforced and a
substitute free throw is awarded. If a defender contacts the free thrower, a
personal foul is the correct ruling. Whether the free throw is or is not successful, the penalty for the personal foul is awarded. If the free thrower’s
team is in a bonus situation, the free thrower would be awarded a one-and one or two free throws. If the free thrower’s team is not in a bonus situation,
his or her team would be awarded a throw-in along the end line.

So is any contact on a FT shooter by defense, while ball is in flight is to be called a PF... Is it that black and white for us officials?

I think we have found our replacement for the "if the B2 deflects the ball and A1 catches it in the back court before it touches the floor" question.

Legal play...now how about providing YOUR interp of this seeing as it's something new the NFHS is putting emphasis on.

A blatant block out, rear in the gut prior to contact, sure...a slight bump setting up to box out...perhaps or might we have a delayed violation here....

Just trying to see what people have to say about it and how they would officiat it.

Don't let post count fool you...I just haven't been on here in a few years.:cool: Couldn't remember my old password and I changed email accounts...

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??? :(

I'm going to scare the kids in my pre game conference so they won't even go near the free throw shooter.

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk

So is any contact on a FT shooter by defense, while ball is in flight is to be called a PF... Is it that black and white for us officials?[/QUOTE]

Before it touches the rim: Violation and PF, unless its somehow is an intentional foul.
My understanding is that the contact does not negate the violation.

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.

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!:D

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

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.

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?

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.

Did I forget my blue font?

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk

"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...

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

Hey now...the girls I coached DID! :D

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!

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.

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

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

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.

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

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? :D

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

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

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 ?

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.

Contact after the ball is dead is ignored unless intentional or flagrant. You have to decide based on what you see.

There is no reflexive boxing out that long after the shot has been released. Don't tolerate that garbage in your games.

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)