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

[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.

[Nevadaref]

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

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

[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.

[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....

[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.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

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

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.