Offensive Foul during FT

[BryanV21]

Are we not calling some fouls because of them happening during a free throw?

Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk

[SC Official]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

Are we not calling some fouls because of them happening during a free throw?

Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk

If it doesn't create an advantage, is it a foul by rule?

[BryanV21]

Originally Posted by SC Official

If it doesn't create an advantage, is it a foul by rule?

Yes.

Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk

[SC Official]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

Yes.

Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk

"A personal foul is a player foul which involves illegal contact with an opponent while the ball is live, which hinders an opponent from performing normal defensive and offensive movements."

On a made free throw, there aren't many offensive or defensive movements which you can hinder. If you want to call minor contact that leads to no advantage, be my guest. But any camp I've ever been to would ding you for not having a more patient whistle and charging a "nothing" foul. You're better off calling the severe contact that makes everyone in the gym go "WHOA" and leaving the game interrupters like this alone.

And yes, it is possible to do that and still be within the spirit and intent of the rules.

[BryanV21]

Originally Posted by SC Official

"A personal foul is a player foul which involves illegal contact with an opponent while the ball is live, which hinders an opponent from performing normal defensive and offensive movements."

On a made free throw, there aren't many offensive or defensive movements which you can hinder. If you want to call minor contact that leads to no advantage, be my guest. But any camp I've ever been to would ding you for not having a more patient whistle and charging a "nothing" foul. You're better off calling the severe contact that makes everyone in the gym go "WHOA" and leaving the game interrupters like this alone.

And yes, it is possible to do that and still be within the spirit and intent of the rules.

I'm not saying call "ticky tack" fouls that aren't necessary. But not calling a foul simply because of there being no clear advantage (the words "advantage" and "disadvantage" do not appear in the definition of "foul" under rule 4, nor under illegal contact under rule 10-6) is wrong.

You, yourself, said the words "by rule", yet reverted to what you were told in camps. Yes, camps are a great source for us, but again... You said "by rule".

We're not robots, nor should we be, so I understand what you and others are saying. I'm just clarifying that advantage/disadvantage is not in the rules.

Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

...

We're not robots, nor should we be, so I understand what you and others are saying. I'm just clarifying that advantage/disadvantage is not in the rules.

Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk

Advantage/disadvantage may not be explicated spelled out in the rule book, but on this play is it most definitely in the minds of supervisors and observers. Being an official who blows his whistle on these type of plays will adversely affect the perception observers/supervisors have of that official.

[SC Official]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

I'm not saying call "ticky tack" fouls that aren't necessary. But not calling a foul simply because of there being no clear advantage (the words "advantage" and "disadvantage" do not appear in the definition of "foul" under rule 4, nor under illegal contact under rule 10-6) is wrong.

You, yourself, said the words "by rule", yet reverted to what you were told in camps. Yes, camps are a great source for us, but again... You said "by rule".

We're not robots, nor should we be, so I understand what you and others are saying. I'm just clarifying that advantage/disadvantage is not in the rules.

Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk

You don't think "hinders an opponent from performing normal defensive and offensive movements" implies advantage/disadvantage just because those words aren't actually used?

There's some section in the beginning of the NFHS rule book that talks about intelligently applying the rules according to their intent and spirit. This is one of those cases.

[BryanV21]

Originally Posted by SC Official

You don't think "hinders an opponent from performing normal defensive and offensive movements" implies advantage/disadvantage just because those words aren't actually used?

There's some section in the beginning of the NFHS rule book that talks about intelligently applying the rules according to their intent and spirit. This is one of those cases.

I pointed out that calling a foul simply because of whether an advantage was gained is wrong.

In the case presented by the OP, while the advantage/disadvantage thing could certainly play a part in how the official applies the foul rule, it is not the only thing that should be considered.

Did the defender give a small push, that would have given him an advantage had the FT missed and a rebound was possible for his opponent w/o having been pushed? I can see letting that go.

Did the defender push his opponent hard enough that everybody in the building could see it? Not hard enough to warrant a flagrant foul, but something that we don't want to let go. In that case the lack of any advantage would likely not keep you from calling a foul.

Again... advantage/disadvantage, in and of itself, is not a reason to pass on a foul call. Nobody pointed that out and just agreed with advantage/disadvantage thing, and I decided to say something. I wasn't disagreeing and saying we should be robots when it comes to applying the rules, just adding clarification.