Offensive Foul during FT
 

We had a situation in a high school summer league game last night during a made FT.

While A1 is attempting a FT, A2 fouls B1 after the release of the ball. The FT is made. Does the point count or is the ball dead when the offense fouls?

I believe it may fall within 6.7.7 but I am struggling to interpret.

Let's look at that rule:

Is this a team control foul or player control foul? Is there team or player control once a try is in flight?

If this is not a team/player control situation, consider the exceptions:

Exception a clearly does not apply since it is not a field goal.

Exception c clearly does not apply since the foul was not by an opponent of the shooter.

But, what about exception b? Does it fit? If so, then the ball does not become dead until the try ends due to the exception.

Camron broke down the rule, but the first thing you have to remember is that there is no Team Control once a try is released, so there can be no "offensive" fouls (Team Control nor Player Control).

At a camp you would likely be told to have a more patient whistle, since a common foul during a made free throw attempt doesn't really create any advantage.

There's my holier-than-thou post for the day. ;)

To make sure...

If the foul occurred during the last of A1's free throws, after counting the made FT, either give the ball to Team B along the endline or award any bonus free throws.

If A1 is due another free throw, clear the lane and administer it. Afterwards, either give Team B the ball on the endline or award bonus free throws.

Side track:

Scenario: out of control shooter releases ball before crashing into defender with LGP. After the foul by the shooter, the ball falls through the net.

IIRC, it used to be that we would count the basket but still charge the common foul, possibly resulting in bonus free throws. I thought that had changed. But exception (a) would seem to say that the ball does not become dead on the charge by the shooter. Could someone be so kind as to explain the application in that scenario.

When an airborne shooter commits a common foul, it is a player control foul. A player control foul always kills the ball immediately, in NFHS, NCAA-M, and NCAA-W (NCAA-M is the most recent addition to this). Heck, even if the ball were to somehow go in the basket before the PC foul, you would still wave it off.

It hasn't been that way in HS for at least 20 years or so. What you describe was the NCAAM rule.

I know -- it was more than that long ago that I played! I loved those opportunities to take a charge on defense and shoot FTs!

The airborne shooter being a PC is what I was missing (thanks SC official!) -- without that, the excerpts above would suggest it was still that way, which is why i was perplexed.

I was reading this scenario differently from the others who have already replied. A1 releases try, not an airborne shooter anymore, continues and knocks B2 to the ground. I suppose you could count the basket and B2 could shoot FTs if in the bonus. Not realistic but hey, it's the offseason and there isn't a lot to talk about.

Longer than that. I have been officiating over 20 years and the rule was never that way since I became an official at the high school level.

Peace

Are you saying that A1 has already returned to the ground when he knocks B2 down? Because releasing the try is what begins airborne shooter status, not ends it.

You're correct. Once AS status ends, the application becomes as that for anyone else who commits a common foul while a try is in flight.

You probably wouldn't see this often, but I could picture a perimeter shot where the shooter A1 returns to the floor and then busts it to follow his shot, knocking over B1 in the process before the ball goes in. In that case, count the goal and report the foul. Ball OOB to B or bonus FTs if applicable.

As was said before, calling a foul on the shooting team here should be as patient a whistle as possible. But if the contact rattles the whole building....well every once in a while you have to call those kind of fouls.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Airborne Shooter ...
 

4-1 AIRBORNE SHOOTER
ART. 1 An airborne shooter is a player who has released the ball on a try
for a goal or has tapped the ball and has not returned to the floor.
ART. 2 The airborne shooter is considered to be in the act of shooting.

4-20-6: A player-control foul is a common foul committed by a player while
he/she is in control of the ball or by an airborne shooter.

Are you saying he's not an airborne shooter after he releases the shot or are you presenting a scenario where he returns to the floor and then charges into the defender?

Kinda. I hate the type of contact not called during made free throws. Indeed, no "physical" advantage is gained but so often the player fouled will still get upset. He/She may look at the ref and mutter something or, simply "remember" the player that fouled them and consider retaliation. To me, if my opponent gets upset/disgruntled toward me as a player or ref, then I have indeed gained a "mental" advantage.

Just a thought...

We don't officiate mental advantages. Some people just have thinner skin. Not our problem. Sounds like the kid needs some mental jiujitsu here.

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?

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.

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

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.

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 have seen this enough that I either tell him to knock it off, call the foul, or watch him like a hawk and get something 50/50 and put it on him. Because the look from the guy who got hit is nasty. Normally he appreciates me tell him off right on the spot and it stops. If I have already had any talk with this game wrecker there is even a better chance he will get a foul.

We don't? So do you allow unlimited trash talk? Do you allow any sort of verbal threats because no physical advantage was gained?

I can see it now...A1 at the FT line and B2 walks near him before shooting calling him, loudly, every name in the book, making comments about his religion/ethnicity/gender/sexual orientation and promising to meet him in the parking lot after the game if he makes it. Team A coach inquires and you say "There was no physical advantage gained and A1 needs mental jujitsu." Should go over well.

I know, I know, to extreme. Forgive me.

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.

The flaw in your argument, is that trash talking and yelling during free throws are explicitly called out in the rule book. What the rule book doesn't address is calling a foul because that foul "may" create an issue on the other end of the court.

Advantage/disadvantage has almost gone the way of the dinosaur. The current application is to apply the rules as written, and promote freedom of movement.

As more and more contact is specifically called out as infractions the onus goes away from "judgement" and to just call the contact a foul.

This, of course, does apply moreso at the college level, however HS can benefit quite a bit from this too.

Advantage/Disadvantage ...
 

We're not quite there yet, but the asteroid is on it's way.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com...bd6c054b7f.jpg

farside....top 3 cartoon strips of all time (calvin and hobbes and dilbert are the other 2). Yes I am very well read in these 3 and I knew this panel halfway into it :).