FT Violations
 

Had an interesting occurrence/call: The other official and I had conflicting remedies (I acquiesced) to not disturb the flow of the game) On a FT attempt a defending player steps into the lane before the release of the FT.... we signal for the potential violation and we let the shooter shoot ...his shot is an air ball (it does not touch the rim) We both blew our whistles My colleague's call was that the shooter gets the shot over because of the pending lane violation My call is that there is a double violation and that we go to the possession arrow ... we huddle and his reasoning persuaded me to relent at this time He said the shooter was in no jeopardy to lose his shot because of the prior violation
We continue the discussion at half time ...My counter reasoning was what if the shooter's own player subsequently steps in the lane as a second lane violation ...that would result in a jump ball! I also argued what if the FT shooter steps on the foul line while attempting his FT; or what if he faked his attempt -- to draw others into the lane ....would not those also be violations that have to be adjudicated to What is the call ...would the shooter get his shot over as my colleague contends or should a double violation be administered??

Play 1) It depends. If the act of stepping in early is judged to be disconcertion, then your partner was correct -- the shooter gets another try. If the act was not judged to be disconcertion, then you are correct -- it's a double violation and go to the arrow (unless there's another try).

Play 2) You are incorrect. Only the first violation here is penalized. Note the difference between two violations by players on the lane and two violations by a player on the lane and a player not on the lane. Also note that if the two violations by players on the lane are simultaneous (rare), then we go to the arrow.

See bob's response. In reality, I lean towards disconcertion on this play, but others disagree.

Follow up question, was there another free throw to follow?

Had the same situation earlier this season. My partner and I huddled and he was of the opinion that the defense did disconcert the shooter. I went with him as he had the shooter. Not that it mattered, but defensive coach was complementary of the way it was handled.

FT Violations
 

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.

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.

Ft Violations
 

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.

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

FIFY.

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

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." :eek:

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.

FT Violations
 

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

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.

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.

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

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk

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:confused:. 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

Ask And It Will Be Given To You (Matthew 7:7) ...
 

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.

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.

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.

Give That Man A Cigar ...
 

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?

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

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

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.

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:)

I like the idea of having the door closed both ways, but I also agree that there's really no advantage to be gained. It's only hard to call if you're the only one calling it. It's not hard to see, IMO.

I haven't watched a game in over a week. It's been rough, especially with the amount of trash I talked to my students prior to that weekend's games. I had no idea I have so many fans of A&M in my room on a daily basis.

I'm glad you see the ridiculousness of that argument. I'm just saying that freedom/restrictions should be all-encompassing, so I have no problem with the rule.

I didn't have the rule come up this year. I don't mind it though because i've seen kids cross the FT line in the past and the shooter may step back quick etc to avoid contact. No contact so no foul. FT shooter shouldn't have to worry about knees when following through etc. The violation provides a penalty even though shooter avoided the contact. I also don't mind the double penalty when there is contact--violation and foul. As BNR stated, not necessary to back into FT shooter. Other players entering lane on release make it less likely FT shooter will get rebound unless he leaves early.

I think it is hard for the C to see. As soon as the ball is released, C need to move his/her eyes to the rebounding action.

I'd prefer to give this call to T

The free throw shooter has released the ball so it's not the same as defending a throw-in. You have listed no advantage of crossing the free throw line other than the free-throw shooter doesn't get to do the same. Like I said, all the defender is going to do is cause illegal contact if he crosses the free throw line so what is the advantage?

And again I'm concerned about the officiating aspect which you are not addressing. Having to a call a violation followed by foul is very convoluted. Let's just call the foul and move on with the game.

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk

Fair point, but we have to watch the shooter anyway for the same violation.

I have no problem with the college rule. And in eight years of officiating college basketball under the same rule, minus the restriction of crossing the free throw line by the defender, it has never been a problem because it is stupid to cross the free throw line if you are the defender; all you're going to do is contact the free-throw shooter illegally.

College players stand in front of the free-throw shooter after they release the ball and box out. Any contact when doing it that way is caused by the free-throw shooter.

Again I don't care about the fairness or the equity of this rule. I only care about the rules in that regard when it comes to correctable errors, because those are our fault.

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk

I guess we agree that we disagree.

Still waiting for someone to tell me what advantage is gained by a defender crossing the free-throw line. Since I can't fathom it in my mind I need somebody to tell me what it could be.

I can't even imagine how a defender does it without contacting the free-throw shooter.

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk

Good Lord, are you changing your name to Nevadaref( joke Nevada)? The advantage is that if I'm shooting FTs and you come at my knees I'm going to back away before contact..when I should be allowed to follow through and stay there. No contact so no foul but has impact./advantage on other throws. It doesn't happen in NCAAM or Higher level boys high school but I can see where it's an issue other places.

When players are taught to box out, they are taught to make contact with the player who they are boxing out. Crossing the free throw line enables them to make contact. The only real benefit in doing this before the ball hits the rim is perhaps their coach will notice how well they box out and maybe they'll get more playing time.

Unless it is during a box-out drill, free-throw shooters rarely make much of an effort to avoid being boxed out and don't make an effort to get the ball until it is clear that it was a miss. (Everyone who shoots a free throw should expect to make it and usually will.)

I used to see this type of contact in Girls MS games and possibly even Girls Freshman/JV games. It always looked odd to me.

Third chuckle today. Kids can't shoot FTs today. All my posts are made with smile. Not meaning to be an ass.

Ps. Chuckling 3 times in one day is special because 4 out of 5 days I work w my wife...:)

HS & MS coaches need to ask college coaches why they don't teach their players to initiate contact with the free throw shooter.

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk

Never happened in my eight years of officiating college basketball where there is no restriction across the free throw line. And never happened in all my years of playing basketball either. Where do you guys come up with this stuff? If it's such an advantage how come college coaches don't teach their players to do it?

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk

It's not an issue if officials do something called blowing their whistle and calling a foul instead of being so lackadaisical during free throws.

"Coach, if your player knocks the shooter backwards or makes contact to his knees I'm calling a foul."

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk

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.