POE question...

[Cole4088]

So, here in Michigan they have been pushing this POE for the free throw shooter. My group of officials I feel are mixed up. Their interpretation of the rule is...
If an opposing team player makes contact with free throw shooter before it hits the rim it's is an intentional foul. I can't find it any where. I think it is just a violation but I'm the newbie. Help

[MechanicGuy]

Originally Posted by Cole4088

So, here in Michigan they have been pushing this POE for the free throw shooter. My group of officials I feel are mixed up. Their interpretation of the rule is...
If an opposing team player makes contact with free throw shooter before it hits the rim it's is an intentional foul. I can't find it any where. I think it is just a violation but I'm the newbie. Help

Common foul.

[frezer11]

Originally Posted by MechanicGuy

Common foul.

Common foul AND a violation. If the FT is missed, the shooter gets a replacement

[Nevadaref]

http://nfhs.org/sports-resource-cont...tions-2015-16/

Your officials wouldn't be confused if they read material that the NFHS publishes.

[Cole4088]

I will be showing them all this. It's an epidemic here. EVERYONE is calling it a intentional because we have associations teaching guys this. I was present in a meeting when it was happening.

[Cole4088]

If the player boxing out completely takes out the shooter then of course it's an intentional but if it's a common box out it should be a common foul IMO

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Cole4088

I will be showing them all this. It's an epidemic here. EVERYONE is calling it a intentional because we have associations teaching guys this. I was present in a meeting when it was happening.

Print the Interpretations page from the NFHS website. Don't know how it can be any clearer than that.

[Stat-Man]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

http://nfhs.org/sports-resource-cont...tions-2015-16/

Your officials wouldn't be confused if they read material that the NFHS publishes.

The MHSAA has issued its own interpretation that incidental contact against the free throw shooter is not a foul. Only illegal contact is to be called a foul. Unfortunately, the state guy that attended our rule meeting didn't express it that way--causing a lot more confusion than necessary.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Stat-Man

The MHSAA has issued its own interpretation that incidental contact against the free throw shooter is not a foul. Only illegal contact is to be called a foul. Unfortunately, the state guy that attended our rule meeting didn't express it that way--causing a lot more confusion than necessary.

Now I am confused. How could incidental contact ever be a foul?

MTD, Sr.

[BigCat]

In Illinois it is a violation when defender breaks plane of free throw line before ball hits etc. if the player continues and makes contact w ft shooter we judge incidental, common foul, or intentional based on what we see. The Poe language is a mess and you won't find this anywhere in rule book. You need to check w your state to see what it is doing. There are threads on this if you want to read more. Search free throw Poe....

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BigCat

The Poe language is a mess and you won't find this anywhere in rule book.

Silly NFHS monkeys.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BigCat

... it is a violation when defender breaks plane of free throw line before ball hits ... If the player continues and makes contact with ft shooter we judge incidental, common foul, or intentional based on what we see.

Breaks the plane with what? Foot (like lane violations), or any body part (like defender crossing the throwin boundary)? Does the POE say "plane"? Or does the player have to make contact with the floor in the free throw semicircle (like an out of bounds violation)?

Is incidental one of the NFHS approved choices, or is any contact an automatic foul (like a defender making contact with an inbounder)?

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. The same rule applies to all other players who do not occupy free throw lane line marked spaces. 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.

Comment: Rule 9-1 does not address the issue of players, other than the free thrower during the free throw, entering the semi-circle. The national interpretation on this issue is during the free throw, anyone entering the semi-circle has created a violation. If it is a team member who violates, the ball should be blown dead immediately. If an opponent violates, it is a delayed lane violation and the free thrower should be awarded a substitute throw if the free throw is missed.

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)

[packersowner]

Their clarification could use some clarification....wasn't the original intent of this to ensure that a FT shooter was not getting "boxed out" without being able to protect themselves? In my opinion, we should be looking for contact with the shooter first and then contact with the actual semi-circle. Simply waving my arm across the plane without contact is not what we are looking for here...but I could see where others may see this differently.

[Cole4088]

That's what I'm getting but can't find it in the rule book or POE section. All the higher up officials are disagreeing and I would love to prove them wrong.

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by Cole4088

So, here in Michigan they have been pushing this POE for the free throw shooter. My group of officials I feel are mixed up. Their interpretation of the rule is...
If an opposing team player makes contact with free throw shooter before it hits the rim it's is an intentional foul. I can't find it any where. I think it is just a violation but I'm the newbie. Help

One of my interpreters viewed it the same way, i.e. if you're not supposed to be over the line in the first place, and then you foul the FT shooter to boot, then it must be intentional. He didn't direct us to call it this way, but rather just interpreted it this way.

In the end he said, "just follow the rules and defend your decisions as such." I have. In other words, IMO such a foul is not intentional unless it meets the criteria for an intentional foul (which would most likely be excessive contact in this situation, e.g. "bowling over" the shooter with an overly aggressive box-out). Merely entering the circle and fouling the shooter is not automatically an IF. IOW, I respectfully disagree with my interpreter.