The Official Forum

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)
-   Basketball (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/)
-   -   POE question... (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/100618-poe-question.html)

Cole4088 Mon Jan 04, 2016 10:50pm
POE question...
 
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 Mon Jan 04, 2016 10:58pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cole4088 (Post 975157)
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 Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:00pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by MechanicGuy (Post 975161)
Common foul.
Common foul AND a violation. If the FT is missed, the shooter gets a replacement

Cole4088 Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:01pm
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.

Nevadaref Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:04pm
http://nfhs.org/sports-resource-cont...tions-2015-16/

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

crosscountry55 Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:06pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cole4088 (Post 975157)
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.

BigCat Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:06pm
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....

Cole4088 Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:07pm
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 Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:09pm
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 Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:10pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cole4088 (Post 975167)
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 Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:19pm
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 Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:27pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cole4088 (Post 975171)
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 Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:32pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cole4088 (Post 975171)
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 Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:50pm
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.

Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:51pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cole4088 (Post 975157)
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

I will preface my remarks with a mea culpa. Mark, Jr., and I are registered by both OhioHSAA and MichiganHSAA. Since we live in Ohio we are not required to complete the MichiganHSAA Online State Rules Meeting; usually I will complete it but did not do it this year, therefore I cannot speak as to what Nate Hampton, the MichiganHSAA State Rules Interpretator, discussed in the Online Meeting.

But, Nate Hampton is also the NFHS Section 4 Representative on the NFHS Basketball Rules Committee and there should be no confusion in the State of Michigan. That said, there have been a couple of times over the years when Nate and I have had disagreements over interpretations involving new rules, and he came up lacking in my opinion.

MTD, Sr.

Cole4088 Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:57pm
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 Tue Jan 05, 2016 12:36am
Mess Is A Polite Word, I Can Think Of Others ...
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigCat (Post 975166)
The Poe language is a mess and you won't find this anywhere in rule book.
Silly NFHS monkeys.

BillyMac Tue Jan 05, 2016 12:43am
Stupid NFHS Monkeys ...
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigCat (Post 975166)
... 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 Tue Jan 05, 2016 01:12pm
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 Tue Jan 05, 2016 01:50pm
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 Tue Jan 05, 2016 01:53pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by OKREF (Post 975255)
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 Tue Jan 05, 2016 02:50pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by packersowner (Post 975257)
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 Tue Jan 05, 2016 03:23pm
Step By Step (Remember Suzanne Somers ???) ...
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dad (Post 975278)
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 Tue Jan 05, 2016 03:27pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 975284)
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 Tue Jan 05, 2016 03:36pm
Silly NFHS Monkeys ...
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OKREF (Post 975255)
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 Tue Jan 05, 2016 03:39pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 975287)
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 Tue Jan 05, 2016 03:49pm
If, That's Right, I Said If ...
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BadNewsRef (Post 975290)
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 Tue Jan 05, 2016 04:01pm
Give packersowner A Prize ...
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by packersowner (Post 975245)
Their clarification could use some clarification...
Nice. My nomination for Post O' The Month.

Stat-Man Tue Jan 05, 2016 09:30pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nevadaref (Post 975164)
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 Tue Jan 05, 2016 10:53pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 975298)
Nice. My nomination for Post O' The Month.
Yes! But given its January 5th, I have a long way to go......

Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. Wed Jan 06, 2016 12:40am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stat-Man (Post 975309)
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 Wed Jan 06, 2016 07:19am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. (Post 975348)
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.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:26am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1