Incredibly Embarrassing Moment

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

Oh, I get that. When I first look at the rule book, and saw that, I was with you. Part d of that rule makes me wonder. Like devil's advocate, right?

Only one of the criteria has to be met. In this case, "a" is met so it's TC.

The good news is, the right team got the ball.

The bad news is, they had to give up their next AP possession to get it.
The other bad news is they got it under the wrong basket.

Seems like a wash to me.

[ODog]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

A team is in control of the ball:
a. when a player of the team is in control
b. while a live ball is being passed among teammates
c. during an interrupted dribble
d. when a player of the team has disposal of the ball for a throw-in

Part "d" makes me think that there is no team control when a player of a team has disposal of the ball for a free throw, because if that's the case then why did the NFHS say that in "d" without saying something similar for a free-thrower?

Because it's covered in Part A. The free thrower is holding a live ball. That's the definition of being in control.

For a throw-in, disposal doesn't necessarily mean "holding" the ball. It just means "you have a reasonable opportunity to be holding the ball, but are opting not to." Disposal for a FT means you already have the ball.

[Zoochy]

Originally Posted by ODog

Because it's covered in Part A. The free thrower is holding a live ball. That's the definition of being in control.

For a throw-in, disposal doesn't necessarily mean "holding" the ball. It just means "you have a reasonable opportunity to be holding the ball, but are opting not to." Disposal for a FT means you already have the ball.

As long as you have started the 10 second count, the ball is at the disposal. What if the free throwing team stays in the huddle of a TO? The official will perform a 'resumption of play' procedure and place the ball on the free throw line.
I'm just saying......

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Zoochy

As long as you have started the 10 second count, the ball is at the disposal. What if the free throwing team stays in the huddle of a TO? The official will perform a 'resumption of play' procedure and place the ball on the free throw line.
I'm just saying......

And in the context of the OP, there would be no PC or TC in that case.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Adam

Wouldn't this be a team control foul?

Greatest post we've seen on the Forum in a long time. I bet magicians hate Adam.

[Nevadaref]

1. Officiating mistakes happen to all of us. We hate it. We feel awful, but it is never as bad as we think. We are just harder on ourselves than any non-official can imagine.
2. The foul by A2 is indeed a team control foul. The NFHS has a case book play on this. I'll let you find it.
3. No one else has brought this up yet, but per NFHS interpretation A2 also committed a FT lane violation when he fouled, so that FT is now over and A1 should have only been awarded his second FT attempt wit the lane cleared. Therefore, your crew actually awarded two unmerited FTs in the administration of this.
4. Your attitude has improved a tremendous amount since you first posted on this forum. You are also going to become a much better official because of that. You are now willing to learn from others and your mistakes.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

Just as the free thrower for Team A gets possession of the ball, a teammate of his on the free throw lane pushes a player from Team B that was lined up next to him.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

... per NFHS interpretation A2 also committed a FT lane violation when he fouled, so that FT is now over and A1 should have only been awarded his second FT attempt with the lane cleared.

OK. I'll bite. Assuming A2's foot didn't cross any marked lane planes, what's the free throw violation?

Caseplay (below) isn't exactly the same as the original post, but it's the closest that I could find:

9.1.3 SITUATION I: During a free throw by A1, B1 pushes A2, then B2, who is
in a marked lane space, is in the lane too soon: (a) before A1 has started a freethrowing
motion; or (b) after A1 has started a throwing motion. RULING: In (a),
the foul by B1 causes the ball to become dead immediately, therefore the act, by
B2 is not a violation. A1 is permitted the specified number of free throws, after
which the foul is penalized. In (b), the foul does not cause the ball to become dead
immediately, so there are two infractions. Even though the foul occurred first, the
violation is the first to be penalized if A1’s try is unsuccessful. (4-11; 6-7
Exception c; 9-1 Penalty 2)

[BryanV21]

How about that?

Friday night was perhaps my worst night of officiating, and last night was one of my best.

From what I read in the rule book it was not a violation. 9-1-3 d. says "no player shall enter a marked lane space or leave a marked lane space by contacting the court outside the 36-inch by 36-inch space until the ball is released."

The player that committed the foul did not contact the court outside of his marked lane space.

And part g. of 9-1-3 says "a player occupying a marked lane space may not have either foot beyond the vertical plane of the outside edge of the lane boundary, or beyond the vertical plane of any edge of the space (2 inches by 36 inches) designated by the lane-space marks."

His feet did not leave his marked lane space.

There may be case plays that say otherwise, but looking at these rules I don't see a violation.

[TimTaylor]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

Did our mistake cost them the game?

Absolutely not.

Did A make all their freethrows?
Did A makeall their shot attemts?

If not, it's on their shoulders.......

I agree with others that the foul by A2 was a TC foul by rule. As such, the subsequent free throw attempt by B was an unmeritted free throw, which would have been a correctable error. Since he missed the FT attempt, there was no real affect on the game.

The only effective error I see was going to the arrow. As others have pointed out, the lane should have been cleared, A1 allowed to attempt their 2 FT's, then give B the ball at the end line. Team B should have kept the arrow, so if anything your crew's error benefitted team A, not team B.

We've all been there at one time or another, so don't let it eat at you - learn from it and move on.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

... we get together to make sure we correctly handle things at this point.

This is the most important part of the post. BryanV21 and his partners got together to collectivity try to figure out an odd situation, a situation that few of us see over the course of a season, or even over the course of several seasons. It's also important to note that the error bothered BryanV21, he didn't just shrug it off. I'd work with BryanV21 in any game, at any time.

[Adam]

Nevadaref is saying this would have been a violation based on NFHS interpretation. I'm not sure where the interp is, or when it was issued, but I'm willing to be convinced.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Adam

Nevadaref is saying this would have been a violation based on NFHS interpretation. I'm not sure where the interp is, or when it was issued, but I'm willing to be convinced.

And I'm sitting on the edge of my seat waiting for his citation.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Adam

Nevadaref is saying this would have been a violation based on NFHS interpretation. I'm not sure where the interp is, or when it was issued, but I'm willing to be convinced.

I recall the NFHS including something about contact between opponents in marked lane spaces being illegal in a recent POE. I and several others disagreed that any contact at all was illegal, but that is what the POE said. I thought that there was some equating of this "foul" to a violation too by the NFHS. Now I'll have to check and see what I can unearth.

[billyu2]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I recall the NFHS including something about contact between opponents in marked lane spaces being illegal in a recent POE. I and several others disagreed that any contact at all was illegal, but that is what the POE said. I thought that there was some equating of this "foul" to a violation too by the NFHS. Now I'll have to check and see what I can unearth.

Nevada,
You might be referring to the NFHS 2013-15 Pre-Season Guide// Three-Person Mechanics. On page 4 there is a short article about using "preventive officiating to avoid potentially ugly situations during free throws. Keep player's hands off each other and know where you need to be looking to catch potential violations." Below that is a picture showing a "plane" between opponents along the lane with the caption, "Imagine a plane between hashmarks on the lane. Keeping an eye on illegal action on the lane lines can help clean up potentially ugly situations."
Although they did use the word "violations" I don't believe the interpretation in the picture meant reaching through the plane is a violation. I believe the POE was to clean up the unnecessary hand-to-hand contact that often occurs in order to avoid uglier situations.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I recall the NFHS including something about contact between opponents in marked lane spaces being illegal in a recent POE. I and several others disagreed that any contact at all was illegal, but that is what the POE said. I thought that there was some equating of this "foul" to a violation too by the NFHS. Now I'll have to check and see what I can unearth.

I appreciate it. I assumed you weren't just pulling that out of thin air.