8 years...good. I respect your opinions but lately you are just disagreeing to disagree. I haven't seen it in 22 years of college....but I have seen it at lower levels. Nobody is acting as if it is a world crisis. What's' the harm in having it also be a violation? I've seen defenders cross line and shooters back up before contact. Your statement that crossing the line always results in contact is just wrong. I agree with you that it is dumb for defense to do it. That's why I'm fine with rule. If somebody does cross line without contact they should still be penalized.

Lately? I've been criticizing the rule since it came out last spring. I was one of the first ones to call it out for being a$$ backwards in its first iteration before the NFHS had to come back and fix it, while some hard heads in here were saying that there was nothing wrong.

Keep officiating simple. All they had to do was make a point of emphasis to protect the free-throw shooter.

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk

It's a rule that logistically is difficult to even officiate with real accuracy unless you're working with 3 officials. It adds the responsibility for the trail to determine whether a defender entered in the semi circle early prior to the ball hitting the basket. The trail already had enough on his plate...on top of that rebounding action. When deciding between adjudicating this violation...especially with no contact and rebounding action....most officials are gonna to go to rebounding action.

I'm one of those that saw no need for the rule. It doesn't help anything IMO. Slight contact with the free thrower after he's released the ball? Never heard a coach or player complain about this. If contact warrants a foul, then call the foul. As to the claims of freedom/restrictions being the same for the FT about entering in early...the purpose of that restriction is to not allow the FT to intentionally miss and sprint in to get his miss as he has the advantage of knowing he's going to miss on purpose and where he wants to miss it. Having the restriction on those entering the lane serves no real legitimate purpose IMO.

What he said

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk

Thx APG,

I always appreciate your well reasoned, non personal attack responses. I don't think the rule is necessary either but I don't pretend to know what goes on in other parts of the country, lower level boys or any women's. I'm with Adam in that I'm not sure how much more this adds to official responsibility. I still have to watch the shooter crossing early. Frankly, that is what I see more of these days. I pregame that because when it is missed it is a "bad" miss. Everybody has to referee FTs. I do agree with Bob that the bs happens in the second spot. Refereeing is hard...

There are many personal attackers on this forum. BNR is decidedly not one of them. Not sure why you're getting so wrapped around the axle about his opinion.

Who said anything about BNR? Look, my life, your life, and everybody else's life is too short. I'm a trial lawyer/prosecutor...and referee...I've got thick skin. I think BNR has been a little crabby lately...no more no less. My wife would say the same thing about me. And I've never heard "wrapped around the axle" before...explain that..I might use it in the future.

I have mixed opinions about the (sort of) rule. It was an IAABO-ism that was independent of the NFHS originally, and I'm pretty sure I hated the rule just because of that. But the IAABO guy on the NFHS committee managed to convince a broader national group to adopt the idea, and so they did. Except the rules editor dorked up by forgetting to put it in the book, and the book had already gone to press by the time the oversight was realized.

I digress. Having observed the intent of the rule this year and having occasionally enforced it, I would first say that I agree it's hard to officiate both the cross-lane spaces and rebounding...while also officiating this area specifically. I found on the few occasions I had to call something it was because something clearly obvious (contact, or the shooter racing in early) showed up in the right peripheral of my right eye. Many times I thought the top defender might have crossed the FT line early, but not being 100% sure I would pass on it.

That all said, I'm not convinced the rule that adds a substitute FT is dumb for HS basketball. When a defender does that, especially if he/she has done it earlier in the game, it can be a distraction to the FT shooter. A free throw should be free. Distraction = disconcertion, so this rule merely provides some objective criteria for a particular type of disconcertion, something the NFHS wants eliminated from the HS game. We know it's a bad coaching strategy to "clear out" FT shooters. But unfortunately at the HS level there are plenty of bad coaches. C'est la vie.

Hard to accurately observe and enforce? Yes. But a dumb rule? Not so sure about that.

But I still dislike IAABO. :p

Just The Facts, Ma'am ...
 

It's true that IAABO was out of line pushing (it was none of their business, it's not their role) the "defender-over-the-free-throw-line" interpretation last year, when it wasn't in the NFHS rulebook (still isn't), and it wasn't even a NFHS point of emphasis (until this recent season).

That being said, the "original" rule was a NFHS rule, not involving IAABO, in any way, shape, or form, way back the last time (before this) that the rebounders were allowed in on the release (NFHS 1996-97). Maybe the NFHS, with a little help (push) from IAABO, figured that if the "defender-over-the-free-throw-line" rule was good enough nineteen years ago, then it was good enough for the latest reincarnation of the rebounders going in on the release.

Note: It's getting to the point where I can't keep track of how many times the NFHS has switched from hit to release, and vice versa, over the past thirty-five years.

https://youtu.be/QWkurH-MEtA

He has a great mentor [emoji3] And he has an outstanding career ahead of him. One dsy it will be his plays appearing on these video requests.

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk

I'm always crabby. I'm what you would call a hostile witness

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk

He does. Youve done a good job.

Agree. Love watching APG work.