New '16/17 Casebook Arrived

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by OKREF

This doesn't say A2 entered the lane prior to shot being released. So why is it a violation? It would be a goaltending wouldn't it?

The Casebook said that A2 committed "a" Violation, and in this instance the Violation was Offensive Goaltending.

MTD, Sr.

[RefBob]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

The Casebook said that A2 committed "a" Violation, and in this instance the Violation was Offensive Goaltending.

MTD, Sr.

Old 9.12B: On the second of two free-throw attempts by A1, the ball is touched outside the cylinder by A2. RULING: The ball became dead immediately when A2 moved into the lane prematurely. Therefore, the goaltending is ignored. The lane violation cancels the free throw and Team B will throw-in from a designated spot outside the end line. (9-1 Penalty 1)

New 9.12B: On the second of two free-throw attempts by A1, the ball is touched outside the cylinder by A2. RULING: No points can be scored A2's actions are ruled a violation. B will be given the ball for a throw-in on the sideline at the free-throw line extended. (9-1 Penalty 1)

I'm somwhat confused here. If new 9.12B is referring to to a goaltending violation by A2, why doesn't B get two free throws and the ball for a division line throw-in under 10-3-9, Penalty?

Camron Rust also raises some interesting questions about why new 9.12B calls for a side line throw-in at the free throw lane line extended. As Camron noted, this seems to be contradicted by Rule 9-1, Penalty 1.a.