POE - FT Shooter Contact

[RefsNCoaches]

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?

[Raymond]

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.

[RefsNCoaches]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

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. Couldn't remember my old password and I changed email accounts...

[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???

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by RefsNCoaches

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. Couldn't remember my old password and I changed email accounts...

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

[Refhoop]

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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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

[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...