The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Basketball

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Thu Oct 13, 2016, 01:23pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: White, GA
Posts: 482
"contacting" the free thrower before ball hits rim..

In our neck of the woods down here, we have two different camps on making contact on the f. throw shooter BEFORE it hits rim.

1. Use normal foul selection to determine if the "contact" warrants a foul
2. Deem the "contact" as illegal if contact is made

I am sure you guys have discussed this before but I can't remember the final answer????
__________________
Mulk
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Thu Oct 13, 2016, 01:33pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 18,016
Quote:
Originally Posted by ronny mulkey View Post
I am sure you guys have discussed this before but I can't remember the final answer????
Because there isn't one.

Different NFHS publications / case plays / articles have included both of the options you mentioned.

I'm in the "normal foul criteria" camp.
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Thu Oct 13, 2016, 01:52pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,966
In the absence of any specific guidance from my state (which we won't get), I'm only penalizing advantage/disadvantage with regard to contact in this situation.
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Fri Oct 14, 2016, 06:32am
This IS My Social Life
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: at L, T, or C
Posts: 2,379
Quote:
Originally Posted by SC Official View Post
In the absence of any specific guidance from my state (which we won't get), I'm only penalizing advantage/disadvantage with regard to contact in this situation.
Our state has stated that "To merit a personal foul the contact must rise above incidental." Others have, too.
__________________
Making Every Effort to Be in the Right Place at the Right Time, Looking at the Right Thing to Make the Right Call
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Fri Oct 14, 2016, 07:21am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Indiana
Posts: 163
There's always the breaking the FT line plane violation you could go with also. As Freddy said indirectly...Not all contact is a foul after all.
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Fri Oct 14, 2016, 08:47am
Adam's Avatar
Keeper of the HAMMER
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: MST
Posts: 27,190
Quote:
Originally Posted by RefsNCoaches View Post
There's always the breaking the FT line plane violation you could go with also. As Freddy said indirectly...Not all contact is a foul after all.
Is this really a violation?
__________________
Sprinkles are for winners.
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Fri Oct 14, 2016, 09:18am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Indiana
Posts: 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old Fri Oct 14, 2016, 09:39am
Adam's Avatar
Keeper of the HAMMER
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: MST
Posts: 27,190
Quote:
Originally Posted by RefsNCoaches View Post
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.
__________________
Sprinkles are for winners.
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old Fri Oct 14, 2016, 10:15am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 280
Read Situation 2 --- you may find your answer...


http://www.nfhs.org/sports-resource-...7?ArtId=106423
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old Fri Oct 14, 2016, 11:11am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Illinois
Posts: 1,804
Quote:
Originally Posted by BEAREF View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old Fri Oct 14, 2016, 11:16am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 592
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).
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old Fri Oct 14, 2016, 11:30am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Illinois
Posts: 1,804
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amesman View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old Fri Oct 14, 2016, 11:31am
Stubborn Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Columbus, OH
Posts: 1,517
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigCat View Post
...
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?
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old Fri Oct 14, 2016, 11:42am
Dad Dad is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 849
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amesman View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old Fri Oct 14, 2016, 11:44am
Dad Dad is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 849
Quote:
Originally Posted by BryanV21 View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
2016 NCAA Rule Change: OBS - "About to Receive" vs. "In the act of Catching" teebob21 Softball 15 Wed Mar 02, 2016 10:16pm
NHSF "intentional" vs NCAA "flagarent" terminology Duffman Basketball 17 Wed Feb 08, 2012 10:15pm
Is "the patient whistle" and "possession consequence" ruining the game? fiasco Basketball 46 Fri Dec 02, 2011 08:43am
ABC's "Nightline" examines "worst calls ever" tonight pizanno Basketball 27 Fri Jul 04, 2008 06:08am
"Balk" or "Ball" johnnyg08 Baseball 9 Fri Aug 18, 2006 08:26am


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:53am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1