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

[ronny mulkey]

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????

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by ronny mulkey

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.

[SC Official]

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.

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by SC Official

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.

[RefsNCoaches]

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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by RefsNCoaches

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?

[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.

[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.

[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 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.

[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.