POE question...

[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.

[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......