Foul during FT

[The_Rookie]

A1 is shooting 1+1 as Team B has 8 fouls. A1 shoots first FT which is successful. During the first shot B1 puts A1 on his butt and is called for the foul.

How should this be handled?

My answer is:

Clear the lane while A1 shoots the back end of the 1+1. Then line the players up and have A1 shoot the next 1+1 due to foul by B1.

Anyone have anything different?

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by The_Rookie

A1 is shooting 1+1 as Team B has 8 fouls. A1 shoots first FT which is successful. During the first shot B1 puts A1 on his butt and is called for the foul.

How should this be handled?

My answer is:

Clear the lane while A1 shoots the back end of the 1+1. Then line the players up and have A1 shoot the next 1+1 due to foul by B1.

Anyone have anything different?

Award The Rookie a fine Cuban cigar. You nailed it!

MTD, Sr.

[BryanV21]

In high school just remember "order of occurrence". And you have administer merited free throws.

Sent from my Lenovo TB-X304F using Tapatalk

[Camron Rust]

Not that I'm inclined to do so, but wan't there an NFHS interpretation a couple of years ago that said crossing into the FT semi-circle and fouling the FT shooter should be an intentional foul (if before the FT is dead)? And that would mean you clear the lane, shoot the remainder of the 1+1, keep the lane cleared, shoot 2 more, then give the ball to A on the endline.

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

...wasn't there an NFHS interpretation a couple of years ago that said crossing into the FT semi-circle and fouling the FT shooter should be an intentional foul (if before the FT is dead)?

Search of NFHS Interpretations came up with nothing on that score.
Below is the 2015-16 Interpretation issued before 9-1-3h was included in the book the next year. I recall this being distinctive because it, at that time, seemed to deem mere contact with the free thrower a foul. But I don't recall "Intentional" being any part of it during this clarification process.
________________________________

Clarification Preseason Guide Article “Enforce Illegal Contact on Free Thrower and Violations During Free Throw”, page 6, second paragraph: The free thrower must remain within the free throw semi-circle until the ball contacts the basket ring or the shot is made or missed. The same rule applies to all other players who do not occupy free throw lane line marked spaces. Players who occupy free throw lane line marked spaces during free throws may enter the free-throw lane upon the free thrower releasing the ball; however, should a defensive player cross the free-throw line too soon, it is a violation. A delayed violation signal is to be displayed. If the free throw is successful, the violation is ignored. If a defender contacts the free thrower, a personal foul is the correct ruling. If the free throw is unsuccessful, the violation is enforced and a substitute free throw is awarded. If a defender contacts the free thrower, a personal foul is the correct ruling. Whether the free throw is or is not successful, the penalty for the personal foul is awarded. If the free thrower’s team is in a bonus situation, the free thrower would be awarded a one-and-one or two free throws. If the free thrower’s team is not in a bonus situation, his or her team would be awarded a throw-in along the end line.

SITUATION 1: The opponent makes contact with the free-throw shooter before the free throw reaches the basket. The free throw is missed.
RULING: The official should rule a violation on the opponent and a personal foul. (9-1-2g Penalty 2b)

SITUATION 2: After A1 releases the ball on a free throw try, B1 steps into the lane and backs across the free-throw line to box out the free-throw shooter then makes contact with the free-throw shooter. The free throw is missed.
RULING: The official should rule a delayed violation on the opponent. A1 will be awarded a substitute free throw and the contact is ruled a foul. The substitute free throw would be administered with the free-throw lane spaces unoccupied. (9-1-2g Penalty 2b)

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

... wasn't there an ... interpretation a couple of years ago that said crossing into the FT semi-circle and fouling the FT shooter should be an intentional foul (if before the FT is dead)?

Originally Posted by Freddy

Search of NFHS Interpretations came up with nothing on that score ... I don't recall "Intentional" being any part of it during this clarification process.

Camron Rust is correct.

Previous to the 2015-16 season, as the NFHS was changing (again) from "hit" to "release" on free throws, International IAABO interpreter, Peter Webb, may have jumped the gun and come out with comments regarding the free throw shooter being a "sitting duck" and that if the shooter was fouled, it should be an intentional foul. I believe that his comments appeared in IAABO's Sportorials magazine. Referee magazine may have played a minor role in this confusion. I remember that I was embarrassed to be an IAABO member because it's IAABO's role to train officials, it's not the role of IAABO to make rule changes, or to interpret rules.

[billyu2]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Camron Rust is correct.

Previous to the 2015-16 season, as the NFHS was changing (again) from "hit" to "release" on free throws, International IAABO interpreter, Peter Webb, may have jumped the gun and come out with comments regarding the free throw shooter being a "sitting duck" and that if the shooter was fouled, it should be an intentional foul. I believe that his comments appeared in IAABO's Sportorials magazine. Referee magazine may have played a minor role in this confusion. I remember that I was embarrassed to be an IAABO member because it's IAABO's role to train officials, it's not the role of IAABO to make rule changes, or to interpret rules.

You are not saying that is the current NFHS interpretation, right? I remember a while back we were discussing the rare possibility of a FT shooter, using a jump shot, being fouled while in the act of shooting. Some of us thought that might be ruled intentional since the shooter is entitled to an "unhindered try for goal."

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Camron Rust is correct.

Previous to the 2015-16 season, as the NFHS was changing (again) from "hit" to "release" on free throws, International IAABO interpreter, Peter Webb, may have jumped the gun and come out with comments regarding the free throw shooter being a "sitting duck" and that if the shooter was fouled, it should be an intentional foul. I believe that his comments appeared in IAABO's Sportorials magazine. Referee magazine may have played a minor role in this confusion. I remember that I was embarrassed to be an IAABO member because it's IAABO's role to train officials, it's not the role of IAABO to make rule changes, or to interpret rules.

But I think that at the time the Peter made his intepretation he was the NFHS Basketball Rules Committee Chairman.

MTD, Sr.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by billyu2

You are not saying that is the current NFHS interpretation, right?

Water under the bridge. It is not the current NFHS interpretation.

Once the NFHS decided (again) to go from "hit" to "release" they stumbled through the process, taking two seasons to get it straight, particularly with a Point of Emphasis regarding lane restrictions for the shooter that was only a Point of Emphasis with no corroborating rule support in the Rulebook.

IAABO (that is only supposed to train officials and isn't supposed to change rules, or interpret rules) added gasoline to the fire when they came up (some say unilaterally, some say after consulting with the NFHS) with their own interpretation of this fiasco.

An article in IAABO's Sportorials magazine, and maybe an article in Referee magazine may have spread misinformation.

Somehow the idea of an intentional foul against the free throw shooter entered into this botched situation, that was already confusing enough, and then shit hit the fan.

It took the NFHS two seasons to clarify, and it took IAABO getting into its proper place in the back seat, but it all eventually got straightened out.

Stupid NFHS. Stupid IAABO.