FT Shooter Fouled

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

... pretty sure that the OP didn't happen while the ball was at the disposal of the FT shooter (although it's possible) ...

How about a foul against a free throw shooter while in the act of shooting the free throw? It will never happen but it is "possible". That would really open up a can of worms.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

How about a foul against a free throw shooter while in the act of shooting the free throw? It will never happen but it is "possible". That would really open up a can of worms.

It would be an intentional foul. You don't accidentally foul a free throw shooter who still has the ball.

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

It would be an intentional foul. You don't accidentally foul a free throw shooter who still has the ball.

Fully agree with first sentence (intentional foul). I don't fully agree with the second (don't accidentally).

Intentional fouls don't always (although many do) have to be intentional (dictionary definition: intended, or on purpose). Sometimes they are accidental, that is, not done to purposely foul.

Here's the citation that I would use to charge an intentional foul:

4-19-3-A: 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: Contact that neutralizes an opponent's obvious advantageous position.

The free the shooter is supposed to have the advantage of an unhindered shot. Illegal contact with the free throw shooter while in the act of shooting a free throw obviously neutralizes a free throw shooter's advantageous position.

[Raymond]

How the heck would you accidentally foul a free throw shooter who still has the ball?

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

How the heck would you accidentally foul a free throw shooter who still has the ball?

Probably won't happen in a million games.

Freshman is sitting on the varsity bench all season. Finally, in a lopsided game, he gets his first chance to play in the varsity game. His adrenaline kicks in. He lines up as a defender on the lane line for the second of two free throws. Head coach yells to him to be sure to box out the shooter. Free throw shooter has a little hitch in his shooting motion. Freshman enters the lane before the release (delayed violation), and crosses the free throw line, also before the release (another delayed violation), and now, with his back to the shooter, boxes out and displaces the shooter while the shooter is still in the act of shooting, possibly as an airborne shooter.

It won't happen, but that doesn't mean that it, theoretically, can't happen.

In a real game, I don't have to decide if the illegal contact is accidental, or on purpose, because I've got all the rule backing for an intentional foul that I need with: Contact that neutralizes an opponent's obvious advantageous position.

[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.

[Nevadaref]

"Clarification Preseason Guide Article “Enforce Illegal Contact on Free Thrower and Violations During Free Throw”, page 6, second paragraph: The free thrower must remain within the free throw semi-circle until the ball contacts the basket ring or the shot is made or missed."

Grrrr.....it is annoying when the NFHS cannot get its own rules right.
The restrictions for the free thrower and all players not in marked lane spaces end when the ball strikes the ring/flange, BACKBOARD, or the try is successful.

The people writing the clarification need to remember to include the backboard!

[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.

[BrentD2222]

The result is all the same?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BrentD2222

The result is all the same?

The result being what?