Goaltend A Free Throw ...
 

Things have been very, very quiet on the Forum so I decided to post something that I found to be of interest.

During last week's IAABO International Virtual Fall Seminar, one of the presentations was regarding situations above the rim and the speaker mentioned that he had never observed a player goaltend a free throw.

So I found this video (it's college but my post is about NFHS rules):

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Qv2Jf97_q6c" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

We all know to award the free throw (assuming by the defense) and charge a technical foul to the offending player in a high school game.

4-22: Goaltending occurs when a player touches the ball during a field-goal try
or tap while the ball is in its downward flight entirely above the basket
ring level, has the possibility of entering the basket in flight and is not
touching the basket cylinder or a player touches the ball outside the
cylinder during a free-throw attempt.

10-4-9: Player Technical: A player shall not: Commit goaltending during a free throw.

9.12 SITUATION B: On the second of two free-throw attempts by A1, the ball is touched outside the cylinder by A2. RULING: No points can be scored. A2’s actions are ruled a violation. B will be given the ball for a throw-in from the designated out of bounds spot nearest the violation. (9-1 Penalty 1)

In 9.12 SITUATION B would A2 also be charged with a technical foul in a high school game? And shouldn't Team B be given the ball for a throwin at the division line opposite the table in a high school game?

Sounds to me like this should be is a technical foul on A2 for offensive goaltending during a free throw.

Is this yet another poor editing job by the NFHS?

Caseplay Struggle ...
 

Here's how the caseplay read back in the 2016-17 NFHS Casebook:

9.12 SITUATION B: On the second of two free-throw attempts by A1, the ball is touched outside the cylinder by A2. RULING: No points can be scored. A2’s actions are ruled a violation. B will be given the ball for a throw-in on the sideline at the free-throw line extended. (9-1 Penalty 1)

Wow!

The throwin spot (on the sideline at the free-throw line extended) is from ancient times, way, way back before 2016-17, back when in all cases where the ball enters the basket illegally due to basket interference or goaltending (field goal or free throw), after an offensive free throw violation, or after a player control foul (charge), the ball was given to the offended team on the sideline at the free-throw line extended, as a "signal" to the the scorekeeper that the basket didn't count.

I think that it was put in play on the lead's sideline in the "Cadillac postilion" (to the right side of the free thrower).

Am I right Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.?

https://tse1.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.S...=0&w=233&h=175

Why is the NFHS struggling so much with caseplay 9.12 SITUATION B?

Stupid NFHS.

For as much criticism as the NFHS gets in this forum(and usually deservedly so), I’m just curious to know if any for7m members have ever served on or applied to serve on the NFHS Boafd or rules making committee. And I’ll admit in advance that I have not looked to see what the process to join either of these bodies is.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Please Allow Me To Criticize ...
 

I have suggested several NFHS rule changes, following official channels through my IAABO local and state board and my state interscholastic sports governing body, many suggestions that made their way up to the NFHS Rules Committee as an agenda item, three of which were accepted.

3-3-E Defensive Match-Up, 2003-04
4-22 Goaltending, 2015-16
3-5-3 Compression Shorts, 2016-17

All three were regarding poorly worded rules, or rules that had been unintentionally changed or deleted.

My last NFHS rule change suggestion was near the end of last season:

9-3-4 A player shall not purposely and/or deceitfully delay returning after legally being out of bounds.
Penalty: The ball is dead when the violation occurs and is awarded to the opponents for a throw-in from the designated out-of-bounds spot nearest the violation.
Rationale: Many officials don't call players for purposely delaying returning in bounds.

This would have made the penalty for a player purposely and/or deceitfully delay returning after legally being out of bounds the same as the penalty for a player leaving the court for an unauthorized reason.

This suggestion made its way through my IAABO local and state board, and my state interscholastic sports governing body, and was passed through to the final agenda items of the NFHS Rules Committee, but it wasn't accepted.

[mention]BillyMac [/mention] , nice work.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Hint: When does the ball become dead when A commits a FT violation? Can a you "goaltend" a dead ball?

I don't believe they take applications. The rules committee is made up of 1 representative from each of eight sections. Each section provides their rep, nominated by the state offices within their section. I believe the state that chooses for each section rotate each term among those that are 100% NFHS states. They are 4-year terms. The committee members may be officials or may be administrators.

Now that I am the State Rules Interpreter, I may try to be selected the next time Oregon's position in the rotation arises. There are 6 states in my section but at least 1 is not a 100% NFHS state. It could be more. It could be that Oregon only gets a 4-year term once every 20 years. We had someone on that committee only a few years ago so I may not get my chance anytime soon.

Always Listen To bob ...
 

Thanks bob jenkins, but I think I need a bigger hint.

All I see is A2 offensively goaltending a free throw (player touches the ball outside the cylinder during a free-throw attempt), which is a technical foul (not a free throw violation), if the ball went in there's no score for A1 because the ball became dead on the offensive goaltending technical foul, two free throws for Team B, and the ball given to Team B for a throwin at the division line opposite the table.

4-22: Goaltending occurs when ... a player touches the ball outside the cylinder during a free-throw attempt.

I don't see a free throw violation in 9.12 SITUATION B.

What's the free throw violation in 9.12 SITUATION B?

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.

Confused In Connecticut ...
 

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?

https://tse2.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.O...=0&w=576&h=170

I'm So Dizzy My Head Is Spinning ...
 

(Tommy Roe, 1969)

https://tse2.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.0...=0&w=300&h=300

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

We're Allowed To Throw Stones ...
 

Many of us don't live in glass houses.

http://arnoldzwicky.s3.amazonaws.com...assHouses.jpeg

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.

Release, Hit, Release, Hit, Release, Hit ...
 

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)).

https://tse1.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.N...=0&w=300&h=300

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.

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.