FT Violations

[mickhickva]

This incident happened on the second of two FT attempts!

[Adam]

Originally Posted by mickhickva

This incident happened on the second of two FT attempts!

I assumed as much, but wanted to clarify. I've seen some officials want to go to the arrow and cancel all remaining free throws.

[BigCat]

Most of the time you can tell by shooter's actions if defender affected him. If his first FT was a brick or air ball that's information to consider. I also lean towards calling it disconcertion.

[mickhickva]

Bob are you stating that in my hypothetical play 2 (where first the defensive player A, steps in early and --- then (not simultaneously) the offensive player
(2) next to the player A steps in as well)

I'm reading in your response on "Play 2" that an official should only respond to the "first violation" and not the" second violation;" so the free thrower should be awarded another free throw Is this a correct interpretation?

What about the other hypothetical .... where --the free thrower steps on the FT line as he releases his attempt?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by mickhickva

Bob are you stating that in my hypothetical play 2 (where first the defensive player A, steps in early and --- then (not simultaneously) the offensive player
(2) next to the player A steps in as well)

I'm reading in your response on "Play 2" that an official should only respond to the "first violation" and not the" second violation;" so the free thrower should be awarded another free throw Is this a correct interpretation?

What about the other hypothetical .... where --the free thrower steps on the FT line as he releases his attempt?

In the first play (in this post), bob's direction is straight from the rule book. When two opponents along the lane both violate, only the first is penalized.

If the second violation is by any other player (including the free throw shooter), you penalize with a simultaneous violation (it says "arrow", but it's really POI) unless you deem the first violation disconcerted the shooter.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Adam

In the first play (in this post), bob's direction is straight from the rule book. When two opponents along the lane both violate, one-after-the-other, only the first is penalized.

If the second violation is by any other player (including the free throw shooter), you penalize with a simultaneous violation (it says "arrow", but it's really POI) unless you deem the first violation disconcerted the shooter.

FIFY.

If both along the lane violate simultaneously, then both are penalized.

[crosscountry55]

mickhickva.....don't feel too bad about your situation because I have one that was far more puzzling. I was T (two person) not long ago on a FT where high post defender cleared out the FT shooter. FT unsuccessful, bonus not in effect. I'm all set to administer a substitute FT followed by ball OOB (new rule interp and case play from this past fall).

Partner gestures to meet me and says, "That's a technical foul! Two shots and the ball."

Mind you the FT was not even close to over at the time of the foul.

He almost had an argument with me on the court. I was the R....I told him I'd live and die by it, and he finally dropped it. Later he tried to explain to me that it's a technical because the ball becomes dead upon release by the FT shooter. I showed him the rule and the page from the pre-season guide last year, and he still didn't believe me. I guess you can lead the horse to water but you can't make it drink.

[mickhickva]

Thanks guys ...this has been very helpful and informative

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

mickhickva.....don't feel too bad about your situation because I have one that was far more puzzling. I was T (two person) not long ago on a FT where high post defender cleared out the FT shooter. FT unsuccessful, bonus not in effect. I'm all set to administer a substitute FT followed by ball OOB (new rule interp and case play from this past fall).

Partner gestures to meet me and says, "That's a technical foul! Two shots and the ball."

Mind you the FT was not even close to over at the time of the foul.

He almost had an argument with me on the court. I was the R....I told him I'd live and die by it, and he finally dropped it. Later he tried to explain to me that it's a technical because the ball becomes dead upon release by the FT shooter. I showed him the rule and the page from the pre-season guide last year, and he still didn't believe me. I guess you can lead the horse to water but you can't make it drink.

You need to show him the rule that shows when a ball becomes dead or when a try ends

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

You need to show him the rule that shows when a ball becomes dead or when a try ends

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk

Rule 6. Rule 4. Rule 9. Talked about all of them. It was too much for him to process.

I did have to admit to him that it didn't help that the NFHS gooned things up by passing a so-called "national interpretation" in two parts between the pre-season guide and the annual interps last fall. If fixing that rule book editing debacle isn't the very first item on the agenda next month, they should just dissolve the committee.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by mickhickva

This incident happened on the second of two FT attempts!

This play happened to me this weekend refereeing AAU. Top defensive player violated and the shooter shot an air ball. We considered the defensive violation disconcertion.

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk