POE question...

[Cole4088]

Let me say this I heard this from local area officials not Nate. I don't know how he interpreted this in his online meeting.

[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.

[OKREF]

It's a violation for crossing and a foul for contact. You could have both on 1 play. It's pretty simple. The intent is to penalize any contact, much the way the 4 automatics are for ball handlers. It seems to me that a foot on the floor in the semi circle equals crossing the line.

[packersowner]

Originally Posted by OKREF

It's a violation for crossing and a foul for contact. You could have both on 1 play. It's pretty simple. The intent is to penalize any contact, much the way the 4 automatics are for ball handlers. It seems to me that a foot on the floor in the semi circle equals crossing the line.

I don't disagree, but the question is the violation part. Is it when you wave your arm across the FT line or step inside the circle.

[Dad]

Originally Posted by packersowner

I don't disagree, but the question is the violation part. Is it when you wave your arm across the FT line or step inside the circle.

Step. Violations during free throws always talk about the feet.

I'm assuming you mean after the FT has been released and disconcerting isn't an option.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Dad

Step. Violations during free throws always talk about the feet.

Let's correctly talk about the feet. Feet simply crossing a plane (marked lane spaces, lane boundaries, free throw line) are all it takes to create free throw lane violations, it doesn't have to be taking a full step and touching the floor.

[Dad]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Feet crossing a plane (marked lane spaces, and lane boundaries), not taking a full step and touching the floor.

I know, but he said step or arm.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by OKREF

It's a violation for crossing ... It seems to me that a foot on the floor in the semi circle equals crossing the line.

Agree with "foot on the floor in the semi circle equals crossing the line", but what about something less than that? Foot crossing the plane of the free throw line (like many other free throw violations)? Arm crossing the plane of the free throw line (like a defender crossing the boundary defending a throwin)?

And if interpretation involves the plane of the free throw line, is it the plane on the front of the free throw line (closest to the basket), or is it the plane on the back of the free throw line (farthest from basket, the plane that the free throw shooter must avoid crossing with his foot)? Remember a plane has only two dimensions, and has no depth.

With apologies to Ricky Ricardo, "NFHS, I think you've got some 'splainin' to do."

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Agree with "foot on the floor in the semi circle equals crossing the line", but what about something less than that? Foot crossing the plane of the free throw line (like many other free throw violations)? Arm crossing the plane of the free throw line (like a defender crossing the boundary defending a throwin)?

And if interpretation involves the plane of the free throw line, is it the plane on the front of the free throw line (closest to the basket), or is it the plane on the back of the free throw line (farthest from basket, the plane that the free throw shooter must avoid crossing with his foot)? Remember a plane has only two dimensions, and has not depth.

With apologies to Ricky Ricardo, "NFHS, I think you've got some 'splainin' to do."

I don't think anybody is asking for that particular explanation.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

I don't think anybody is asking for that particular explanation.

If, and when, this point of emphasis is codified into the rulebook, these (my post above) will have to be sorted out, as they are already sorted out for other types of free throw violations that already exist in the rulebook.

In actuality, I was pointing out the shortsightedness of the NFHS in making this situation a point of emphasis without the necessary rule language in place.

Silly NFHS monkeys.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by packersowner

Their clarification could use some clarification...

Nice. My nomination for Post O' The Month.

[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.

[packersowner]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Nice. My nomination for Post O' The Month.

Yes! But given its January 5th, I have a long way to go......