Goaltend A Free Throw ???

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I don't believe the case indicates a violation has occurred. Isn't it possible for A2 to enter after the release then goaltend, thus no FT violation has occurred?

Maybe I misread the play. There is (or was) a similar case where A enters early and then goaltends.

Note that case 9.12A is a similar play, except B commits the GT and the ruling calls it a "delayed lane violation."

Maybe all this is left over from the "can't enter until it hits" rule era.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Note that case 9.12A is a similar play, except B commits the GT and the ruling calls it a "delayed lane violation."

9.12 SITUATION A: On the first free throw by A1 in a bonus situation: B1 leaps above the lane and touches the ball but it falls in the basket anyway. RULING: Delayed lane violation on B1; the ball is still live. The goaltending violation causes an immediate dead ball and an automatic point for A1; B1 is assessed a technical foul. A1 is awarded the bonus free throw. Following the free throws for the technical foul, it is A’s ball for a division line throw-in opposite the table. (4-22; 6-7-9; 10-3-9)

I also find 9.12 SITUATION A slightly confusing (though not as confusing as 9.12 SITUATION B).

The NFHS can't seem to make up its mind in 9.12 SITUATION A (The NFHS went completely bonkers in 9.12 SITUATION B, especially in the 2016-17 version).

Is it an "immediate dead ball" on the goaltend touch, or is it "still live"?

Also, why would there be a "delayed lane violation"?

What exactly is the lane violation in the situation?

I don't see one. I only see the goaltend touch, which is not a lane violation, but a goaltending violation and a technical foul.

Since when do we delay a goaltending (or basket interference) violation call to see if the ball goes in, or not (as we do for defensive lane violations on free throws)?

Stupid NFHS.

Do the NFHS editors actually get paid to come to work every day, and if so, what do they actually do there, stand around the water cooler all day?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

9.12 SITUATION A: On the first free throw by A1 in a bonus situation: B1 leaps above the lane and touches the ball but it falls in the basket anyway. RULING: Delayed lane violation on B1; the ball is still live. The goaltending violation causes an immediate dead ball and an automatic point for A1; B1 is assessed a technical foul. A1 is awarded the bonus free throw. Following the free throws for the technical foul, it is A’s ball for a division line throw-in opposite the table. (4-22; 6-7-9; 10-3-9)

I also find 9.12 SITUATION A slightly confusing (though not as confusing as 9.12 SITUATION B).

The NFHS can't seem to make up its mind in 9.12 SITUATION A (The NFHS went completely bonkers in 9.12 SITUATION B, especially in the 2016-17 version).

Is it an "immediate dead ball" on the goaltend touch, or is it "still live"?

Also, why would there be a "delayed lane violation"?

What exactly is the lane violation in the situation?

I don't see one. I only see the goaltend touch, which is not a lane violation, but a goaltending violation and a technical foul.

Since when do we delay a goaltending (or basket interference) violation call to see if the ball goes in, or not (as we do for defensive lane violations on free throws)?

Stupid NFHS.

Do the NFHS editors actually get paid to come to work every day, and if so, what do they actually do there, stand around the water cooler all day?

You've read the play wrong....B entered before the release which results in a delayed violation and the ball remains live (so far). THEN, a moment later, B goaltends. That causes an immediate dead ball. Since the GT ends with an awarded point, the delayed violation is ignored followed by the FTs for the technical foul. Now, that sequence of events was probably authored when player had to wait until the ball hit, but it is still possible, albeit very impobably.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

9.12 SITUATION A: On the first free throw by A1 in a bonus situation: B1 leaps above the lane and touches the ball but it falls in the basket anyway. RULING: Delayed lane violation on B1; the ball is still live. The goaltending violation causes an immediate dead ball and an automatic point for A1; B1 is assessed a technical foul. A1 is awarded the bonus free throw. Following the free throws for the technical foul, it is A’s ball for a division line throw-in opposite the table. (4-22; 6-7-9; 10-3-9)

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

You've read the play wrong ... B entered before the release which results in a delayed violation and the ball remains live (so far). THEN, a moment later, B goaltends. That causes an immediate dead ball. Since the GT ends with an awarded point, the delayed violation is ignored followed by the FTs for the technical foul.

While I appreciate the effort, Camron Rust's interpretation doesn't match what 9.12 SITUATION A actually states, and that's all we have to go on in this current 2020-21 casebook play.

Where does it state that B1 entered before the release?

It actually doesn't state that. No actual free throw violation is described here, so no need for a delayed violation signal.

If 9.12 SITUATION A actually did occur as Camron Rust extrapolated ("B entered before the release") in his crystal ball and interpreted, his explanation is spot on (defensive violation before release, live ball, delay violation signal, goaltend, dead ball, delayed violation ignored, count free throw because of the goaltend, A1 gets bonus free throw (with lane cleared), subsequent technical foul penalties (free throws, division line opposite table)).

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Now, that sequence of events was probably authored when player had to wait until the ball hit ...

Agree, but 9.12 SITUATION A is a 2020-21 casebook play, and in 2020-21 we wait for the release, not the hit, been that way for six years, certainly time enough for the NFHS to edit the casebook play.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

1970-71: Hits
1981: Released
1993: Hits
1996-97: Released
1997-98: Hits
2014-15: Released

Stupid NFHS.

When the NFHS considers a rule change, it must consider all other rules and interpretations that may be impacted. It's spelled out right there on the rule change suggestion form.

Stupid NFHS.

[BillyMac]

(Tommy Roe, 1969)

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Maybe all this is left over from the "can't enter until it hits" rule era.

Which "hits rule era"?

That certainly may be a part of the problem.

Best information/research I can come up with:

1970-71: Hits
1981: Released
1993: Hits
1996-97: Released
1997-98: Hits
2014-15: Released