POE question...

[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.

[Cole4088]

Question: Team A is shooting free throws. Team B enter before ball hits the rim makes contact before. You get the foul Team A is in the bonus. Do they get the replacement and a 1 and 1???

[frezer11]

Originally Posted by Cole4088

Question: Team A is shooting free throws. Team B enter before ball hits the rim makes contact before. You get the foul Team A is in the bonus. Do they get the replacement and a 1 and 1???

Correct. Clear the lanes for the replacement as there will be no rebounding opportunity, then line up the bonus shots

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by Cole4088

Question: Team A is shooting free throws. Team B enters the semi circle before ball hits the rim and makes contact before as well. You *** call the foul; Team A is in the bonus. Do they get the replacement (I assume you meant "substitute throw") and a 1 and 1???

If you agree with all of my corrections to your sentence structure, then yes, the substance of your statement is correct. The substitute throw would be with the lane cleared.*

*This is admittedly a bit silly since you're just going to fill the lane back up for the one-and-one with the same shooter on the line....but it's the correct procedure by rule since the ball is to become dead after the substitute free throw (false multiple foul situation).

[Cole4088]

What I said was perfectly understandable!! Really that's one thing I struggle with on the court with right now is 'proper' wording when speaking to coaches or other officials. So yes you are correct. My bad.

[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.

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

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

MTD, Sr.

9-2-10 PENALTY4 is a parellel to this. When a defender reaches across the line on a throw-in and merely contacts the thrower-inner, that's an intentional foul regardless the extent of the contact, right?

According to the original NFHS releases that's how they wanted it called (cf. previously posted Situations). Stat's is correct that MHSAA stipulated that for this to be considered a foul it must rise above the level of mere incidental contact. Not everyone got the memo because there never was an official memo released on this, sadly.