FT Violations

[letemplay]

Could someone explain the new penalty/interp on boxing out/crossing ft line plane prior to ball hitting rim? Or is it in an earlier thread this season? Thanks.
NM...I went back and found a long thread on this last June. Curious, now that a season has passed, how much this play happened and what the outcomes/opinions were?

[Dad]

Originally Posted by letemplay

Could someone explain the new penalty/interp on boxing out/crossing ft line plane prior to ball hitting rim? Or is it in an earlier thread this season? Thanks.
NM...I went back and found a long thread on this last June. Curious, now that a season has passed, how much this play happened and what the outcomes/opinions were?

Went much as expected, at least around here. Most people just didn't call it unless they had to, and even then it wasn't always enforced correctly. I had a good one in the playoffs with the coach going ballistic because we re-shot for the violation and then shot a 1-and-1 for the foul. Coached argued with me for a couple minutes saying I could call one of them but not both.

Hopefully there's more consistency next(this) year.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by letemplay

Could someone explain the new penalty/interp on boxing out/crossing ft line plane prior to ball hitting rim? Or is it in an earlier thread this season? Thanks.
NM...I went back and found a long thread on this last June. Curious, now that a season has passed, how much this play happened and what the outcomes/opinions were?

Didn't have a problem in a single game this season.

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk

[letemplay]

Reason I asked, I saw a play towards end of season, maybe first round of playoffs, where on first shot of 1+1 defender clearly makes contact w shooter, enough so that shooter gives him a little shove back..shot is good, no refs did a thing other than looked like T may have said "hey cut that out", C just standing there looking on. 'Course now defender still pissed from shove from shooter (as well as an under the breath comment I'd wager) that he really nails him on next shot, which also goes in, but refs have to sort of separate the 2 players and after some discussion call a double T. Clearly seemed not to have been handled correctly, but I wasn't sure. Mainly I thought C could have stepped in immediately on first shot and taken charge from get go...prob wouldn't have had the other extracurricular knuckleheadedness

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by letemplay

Could someone explain the new penalty/interp on boxing out/crossing ft line plane prior to ball hitting rim?

Players in marked lane spaces must not move into the lane until the ball is released by the free-throw shooter. The shooter, and the players behind the three point arc, must wait until the ball hits the rim, or the backboard, before entering the lane, or penetrating the three point arc. On release of the ball by the free thrower, the defender boxing out the free thrower shall not cross the free-throw line until the ball contacts the ring, or the backboard. In addition, the free throw shooter must cause the ball to enter the basket, or touch the ring, before the free throw ends. During a free throw, no opponent, including bench personnel, may disconcert the free thrower.

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Didn't have a problem in a single game this season.

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk

You didn't do many girls games, did you?

Neither did I, and I didn't see it much. I only called the double-whammy twice when it really needed to be called, once back in November and then I didn't see it again until an AAU game a few weeks back.

I admit there were several times I could have called a delayed violation on the box out guy sans foul....and like a chicken I passed on all of them. I wasn't about to be the only official in my association making that call. Clearly this rule needs a few more years to mature. It wouldn't hurt for it to be in the rule book, either!

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

You didn't do many girls games, did you?

Neither did I, and I didn't see it much. I only called the double-whammy twice when it really needed to be called, once back in November and then I didn't see it again until an AAU game a few weeks back.

I admit there were several times I could have called a delayed violation on the box out guy sans foul....and like a chicken I passed on all of them. I wasn't about to be the only official in my association making that call. Clearly this rule needs a few more years to mature. It wouldn't hurt for it to be in the rule book, either!

They just need to get rid of the restriction of the defender not be able to cross the free throw line. Let them cross, and it there is illegal contact, we will call the foul.

[BryanV21]

I found it hard to determine if the defender crossed the FT line before or after the ball hit the rim. I did call it a couple of times, but it was on obvious violations.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

It wouldn't hurt for it to be in the rule book, either!

Bingo. Why does the NFHS insist on creating points of emphasis that don't make it into the rulebook (see swinging elbow fouls)? Do they expect officials to carry on these points with oral traditions, as we sing songs about these points around campfires?

[UNIgiantslayers]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

They just need to get rid of the restriction of the defender not be able to cross the free throw line. Let them cross, and it there is illegal contact, we will call the foul.

I think that gives the non-shooter an unfair advantage. I'd agree with most others who say it's tough to call and not many call it around here either, but I can see the reasoning behind the rule.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by UNIgiantslayers

I think that gives the non-shooter an unfair advantage. I'd agree with most others who say it's tough to call and not many call it around here either, but I can see the reasoning behind the rule.

I don't see the advantage of crossing the free throw line. In fact it's rather stupid for the defender to cross the free throw line instead of placing himself in front of the shooter and making the shooter responsible for any contact. Anytime I see defenders knocking free throw shooters off the free-throw line I question the basketball IQ of their coach.

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk

[UNIgiantslayers]

Restricting one player's movement, and not another's gives the non-restricted one an advantage. You're welcome to debate that, but you're not likely to change my mind. I wasn't posting it for argument, just my thoughts on the rule.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by UNIgiantslayers

Restricting one player's movement, and not another's gives the non-restricted one an advantage. You're welcome to debate that, but you're not likely to change my mind. I wasn't posting it for argument, just my thoughts on the rule.

The free throw shooter's movements are already more restricted. I'm not concerned about the fairness or equity. As an official it is easier just to worry about the contact and not whether the defender put his foot across the line. The violation/foul combination is unnecessarily convoluted.


Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk

[UNIgiantslayers]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

The free throw shooter's movements are already more restricted. I'm not concerned about the fairness or equity.

So you think that the player defending a throw in should be allowed to cross the end line prior to the ball being released? I realize this is not a perfect comparison, but if you restrict one player to an area, the other players should not be allowed into that area until restricted player has the freedom to avoid the player entering that area. If the players are allowed to enter that area, then the free thrower should be allowed to leave the semi circle to avoid a player trying to box them out on a long rebound.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by UNIgiantslayers

If the players are allowed to enter that area, then the free thrower should be allowed to leave the semi circle to avoid a player trying to box them out on a long rebound.

I underestimated the amount of damage the UNI loss could cause…

The FTer should be allowed to leave the semi-circle….That made me chuckle