"contacting" the free thrower before ball hits rim..

[RefsNCoaches]

Originally Posted by Adam

Is this really a violation?

I don't have my book to reference rule but I was thinking they had some wording in there about defender entering lane on release and breaking FT plane prior to ball making contact at rim.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by RefsNCoaches

I don't have my book to reference rule but I was thinking they had some wording in there about defender entering lane on release and breaking FT plane prior to ball making contact at rim.

Me neither, but it seems the wording is a bit nebulous. If one applies the rule for entering the lane, then breaking the plane isn't a violation. In fact, all the FT restrictions only penalize if the foot breaks the plane or some other part of the body contacts the floor in the restricted area.

IOW, breaking the plane with hands, hips, or other body parts doesn't violate the rule. They may well intend for us to call it when they break the plane, but I don't know that it says as much.

[BEAREF]

Read Situation 2 --- you may find your answer...


http://www.nfhs.org/sports-resource-...7?ArtId=106423

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by BEAREF

Read Situation 2 --- you may find your answer...


http://www.nfhs.org/sports-resource-...7?ArtId=106423

The interp uses the word ENTER also. If all we do is look at the words of 9-1-3a-h we'd have to say that breaking the plane of the FT line isn't enough. They said ENTER and we know that a player isn't in a place until his foot touches the court. They have used breaking the plane before and didn't in this section.

Problem is that a defender can cause the same problems the nfhs was trying to eliminate without "ENTERING" the FT semi circle. Defender can run and position feet just in front of FT line, squat and break plane of FT line. That will bother the FT shooter. The defender can even make some minor contact with the FT shooter but that doesn't mean he ENTERED the semi circle. Under the wording used in 9-1-3 neither of these would be a violation because the defender didn't enter the semi circle.

I think they should have said defender can't break the vertical plane of FT line with any portion of his or her body…It's not a play that I see so it doesn't bother me too much but I'm sure it will come up for someone.

[BryanV21]

Originally Posted by BigCat

...
Problem is that a defender can cause the same problems the nfhs was trying to eliminate without "ENTERING" the FT semi circle. Defender can run and position feet just in front of FT line, squat and break plane of FT line. That will bother the FT shooter.
...

Sorry to steer things from the topic at hand, but I had to ask...

You could still call disconcertion of the FT shooter, and award another shot... right?

[Dad]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

Sorry to steer things from the topic at hand, but I had to ask...

You could still call disconcertion of the FT shooter, and award another shot... right?

What disconcertion? The shot has already been taken and the player is legally moving. I don't care if butt, arms, etc cross the line unless there's something that needs to be a foul.

[BryanV21]

Originally Posted by Dad

What disconcertion? The shot has already been taken and the player is legally moving. I don't care if butt, arms, etc cross the line unless there's something that needs to be a foul.

I was... nevermind. I wasn't thinking clearly. The FT shooter has to release the ball first, so the scenario I was thinking of can't happen without there already being a violation.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

Sorry to steer things from the topic at hand, but I had to ask...

You could still call disconcertion of the FT shooter, and award another shot... right?

Disconcertion is to disturb the FT shooter. while the rule simply says you can't disconcert the FTer, I have always viewed it as having an effect on the current FT. If i'm the FT shooter, i release the ball and then you come and squat…the squat will bother me (disturb or disconcert) but it hasn't affected that FT. the ball is gone. It is more likely to affect the next FT because now I'm thinking about you coming at my knees.

I think this is the way the drafters view it also. If this were disconcertion then there wouldn't be a need for a separate rule about entering the FT semi circle early. You could just call it disconcertion.

[Dad]

Originally Posted by BigCat

Disconcertion is to disturb the FT shooter. while the rule simply says you can't disconcert the FTer, I have always viewed it as having an effect on the current FT. If i'm the FT shooter, i release the ball and then you come and squat…the squat will bother me (disturb or disconcert) but it hasn't affected that FT. the ball is gone. It is more likely to affect the next FT because now I'm thinking about you coming at my knees.

I think this is the way the drafters view it also. If this were disconcertion then there wouldn't be a need for a separate rule about entering the FT semi circle early. You could just call it disconcertion.

If this is the worry then I'd imagine it would've been an issue ever since players could leave on release. If the contact was enough to make someone worry about the next shot then maybe there should have been a call. Although, I'm not entirely sure what your issue is with this whole squatting thing. If the contact isn't enough to warrant a foul why is it an issue?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BigCat

...
Problem is that a defender can cause the same problems the nfhs was trying to eliminate without "ENTERING" the FT semi circle. Defender can run and position feet just in front of FT line, squat and break plane of FT line. That will bother the FT shooter....

I'm not seeing how this would bother the free throw shooter as the ball would be long gone prior to a defender being able to put himself in this position.

If it were an effective way to "bother" a shooter, it would also affect jump shooters. But I've yet to see anybody employ that tactic as a way to disturb jump shooters.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

I'm not seeing how this would bother the free throw shooter as the ball would be long gone prior to a defender being able to put himself in this position.

If it were an effective way to "bother" a shooter, it would also affect jump shooters. But I've yet to see anybody employ that tactic as a way to disturb jump shooters.

I was telling Bryan that a player breaking the plane with his A.. before the ball hits can bother a FT shooter but it isn't disconcertion under the rules because the ball is gone.( He wanted to know if it could be disconcertion.) We know that many good Ft shooters will hold their follow through with a lean forward until ball hits. If you come into the lane and break the FT plane sitting/squatting on my knee before the ball hits that will likely piss me off aka disturb/bother me as i consider it cheap. It's not disconcertion because it has no effect on the FT going in or not. Ball long gone. That is what i was telling Bryan. If your heels were just pass the FT line in that example its a violation now under the new rule. Somebody decided that that bothered the FT shooter…even though the ball is also long gone when the player enters the FT semi circle. My point is simply that if it is enough of a problem to call it a violation for entering the FT semi circle they probably ought to make it a violation for breaking the plane. That can cause the same type of issues.
Again, i wouldn't have the rule because i don't ever see it. somebody must be though…maybe...

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

I'm not seeing how this would bother the free throw shooter as the ball would be long gone prior to a defender being able to put himself in this position.

If it were an effective way to "bother" a shooter, it would also affect jump shooters. But I've yet to see anybody employ that tactic as a way to disturb jump shooters.

A. Difference between the two is that the definition of a free throw is "...an unhindered try...". If hindered on the shot by the prospect of something that lane player has done on a shot previous, then the try is not unhindered.
B. There are a variety of things a defender can do illegally to "bother" a jump shooter to alter his next shot (fingers in chest after release, displacement, hip check after landing, etc.).
(edited for clarity)

[Amesman]

What's the thought again on punishing the violation only before a PF could occur? (Unless egregious contact, of course)

Much like giving a defender a warning for violating the throw-in plane rather than whacking with a TF or PF if contact is made. (At least I think I've read here that some guys prefer to go with just a warning, unless more than incidental/light contact is made).

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by Amesman

What's the thought again on punishing the violation only before a PF could occur? (Unless egregious contact, of course)

Much like giving a defender a warning for violating the throw-in plane rather than whacking with a TF or PF if contact is made. (At least I think I've read here that some guys prefer to go with just a warning, unless more than incidental/light contact is made).

A point of emphasis came out last year or whenever that said it was a violation to enter the semi circle before ball hits etc and if contact is made it should be a foul. It did not say how much contact needed. Some people said any contact is a foul. Illinois rejected that and said the contact has to rise to the level of being a foul. just because there was some contact doesn't mean you call a foul.

This year, they have included in the violation section that entering FT semi circle before….is a violation. I have not read the new book yet but i don't think there is anything in it that says contact with FT shooter is a foul like we saw in that POE. So call it normally. if the contact rises to the level of a foul…call a foul. Don't call a foul just because there was contact.

[Dad]

Originally Posted by Amesman

What's the thought again on punishing the violation only before a PF could occur? (Unless egregious contact, of course)

Much like giving a defender a warning for violating the throw-in plane rather than whacking with a TF or PF if contact is made. (At least I think I've read here that some guys prefer to go with just a warning, unless more than incidental/light contact is made).

They liked the change enough to put it in writing. If players want to step into the semi-circle too soon then we're shooting it again on a miss.

I've never seen someone warn a defensive player who actually made illegal contact on the player making a throw-in. If contact isn't made, then if the level of play is low enough you should probably give warnings so you don't spent all night on the line. In any decent game... they do get a DoG warning.