FT Shooter Fouled

[Dad]

Originally Posted by The_Rookie

My partner who is a Veteran Made the call and in our Post game discussed it.

He told me that after the 1st FT..ball is dead thus a "T"

After 2nd FT, ball is alive thus Intentional.

Is his thought process correct?

You post said deemed it excessive. That excessive statement in the rules only applies to a live ball foul, not dead.

I'd find it extremely hard to find a T on this play.

[The_Rookie]

Originally Posted by Dad

You post said deemed it excessive. That excessive statement in the rules only applies to a live ball foul, not dead.

I'd find it extremely hard to find a T on this play.

My apologies..What our Post game discussion focused on was that if the foul occurred after 1st FT..this is dead ball contact and a T. Since it actually occurred after 2nd FT it is live ball and ruled Excessive and thus Intentional

[Dad]

Originally Posted by The_Rookie

My apologies..What our Post game discussion focused on was that if the foul occurred after 1st FT..this is dead ball contact and a T. Since it actually occurred after 2nd FT it is live ball and ruled Excessive and thus Intentional

Could very well be intentional on the 1st FT also depending on when the contact was.

Was the girl just boxing her out and displaced her? For me it really has to be a windup hit on a box out for me to even consider a tech/intentional.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Dad

You post said deemed it excessive. That excessive statement in the rules only applies to a live ball foul, not dead.

I'd find it extremely hard to find a T on this play.

Not true. Otherwise we wouldn't have rule instructing us to ignore dead ball contact which isn't intentional or flagrant.

[Dad]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Not true. Otherwise we wouldn't have rule instructing us to ignore dead ball contact which isn't intentional or flagrant.

How is it not true? I don't really see the relevance as there are rules which apply to dead ball contact; this just isn't one of them.

d. Excessive contact with an opponent while the ball is live or until an airborne shooter returns to the floor

It's even the only highlighted part of this rule.

[Rob1968]

Originally Posted by Dad

How is it not true? I don't really see the relevance as there are rules which apply to dead ball contact; this just isn't one of them.

d. Excessive contact with an opponent while the ball is live or until an airborne shooter returns to the floor

It's even the only highlighted part of this rule.

Perhaps we consider 10-3-7 to speak to the subject:

A player shall not . . . Intentionally or flagrantly contact an opponent when the ball is dead and such contact is not a personal foul.

[Dad]

Originally Posted by Rob1968

Perhaps we consider 10-3-7 to speak to the subject:

A player shall not . . . Intentionally or flagrantly contact an opponent when the ball is dead and such contact is not a personal foul.

Consider it and then read what I wrote. If that's not enough go to the rule definitions and then the corresponding case book studies. You don't need to bother with the word excessive on a dead ball technical. You do however have to use it during live ball, especially during an airborne shooter situation. The casebook talks about a shooting situation when there is excessive contact.

During a live ball, on a normal play, I'm likely to call an intentional if there is excessive contact. During a dead ball you don't ask yourself if it was excessive and then decide to give a technical. The part of the rule I quoted doesn't ever need to be used to decide if you're giving a T during dead ball.

[Adam]

The rule is that dead ball contact is to be ignored unless it is deemed intentional or flagrant. Unless you're going to include "excessive" as a means of determining whether or not it can be deemed intentional, then it sounds like the contact in the OP should have been ignored.

[just another ref]

It is a given in the OP that the contact was ruled to be excessive. If so, I see no way to ignore it. The definition for an intentional personal foul and an intentional technical foul are, for all practical purposes, the same definition.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Adam

The rule is that dead ball contact is to be ignored unless it is deemed intentional or flagrant. Unless you're going to include "excessive" as a means of determining whether or not it can be deemed intentional, then it sounds like the contact in the OP should have been ignored.

That was the point which I was attempting to make. Thank you for writing it rather succinctly.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by The_Rookie

B1 commits a Hard Foul on A1 ...

Originally Posted by Adam

The rule is that dead ball contact is to be ignored unless it is deemed intentional or flagrant. Unless you're going to include "excessive" as a means of determining whether or not it can be deemed intentional, then it sounds like the contact in the OP should have been ignored.

Here in my little corner of Connecticut (When in Rome ...) we equate a "hard foul" with an excessive contact intentional foul, and we actually have our own unauthorized signal for such a foul. So when I hear "hard foul", I automatically think of an intentional foul. Others should check their local listings.

4-19-3-D: An intentional foul is a personal or technical foul that may or may
not be premeditated and is not based solely on the severity of the act. Intentional
fouls include, but are not limited to: Excessive contact with an opponent while playing the ball.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Dad

How is it not true? I don't really see the relevance as there are rules which apply to dead ball contact; this just isn't one of them.

d. Excessive contact with an opponent while the ball is live or until an airborne shooter returns to the floor

It's even the only highlighted part of this rule.

The NFHS rule editors have been messing around with the definition of an intentional foul for a few years now in an attempt to make officials more aware of the proper situations in which to call one.

I will have to check my previous rule book editions for the exact wording, but the content of rule itself was not supposed to have changed. The text was edited only as a clarification, not a rule change. So whatever the rule was for the past decade is still the rule.

Basically, you need to know that normal contact during a dead ball should be ignored, while that which would be deemed intentional or flagrant needs to be penalized.

For example, if A1 is driving the lane and travels, then attempts a shot and B1 "fouls" this opponent in a normal manner, the contact would be ignored when an official calls the traveling violation. The ball became dead when the traveling violation occurred. However, if B1 were to cause excessive contact on A1 in this situation, then assessing an intentional technical foul would be proper.

[ballgame99]

My confusion on this is can you have a violation AND a foul on the same play?

So if we are shooting the front end of a 1 and 1 and B2 boxes out and crosses the line before the hit, continues into the shooter enough to be considered a foul before the hit, and the free throw misses...

What do I have? The way it has been explained to me is I should ignore the violation and call the foul, then adjudicate the foul appropriately. So in this case, the FT is missed, but I called a foul on the rebound, so the same shooter starts a fresh 1 and 1. But that never seemed right to me since the violation should have resulted in a reshot.

[bob jenkins]

In general, yes, you would have both a violation and a foul.

I have heard of some jurisdictions where they only want the foul penalized in your situation.

Here are two current year interpretations on the same play:

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)

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by ballgame99

My confusion on this is can you have a violation AND a foul on the same play? ... since the violation should have resulted in a reshot.

It should have been a delayed violation and then another free throw if missed, and then penalize the foul accordingly.