The Official Forum - Rules Puzzler: Fouling a FT shooter

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)

- Basketball (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/)

- - Rules Puzzler: Fouling a FT shooter (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/105328-rules-puzzler-fouling-ft-shooter.html)

Logical Intentional Foul ...

Quote:

Originally Posted by billyu2 (Post 1042001)

A free thrower fouled in the act of shooting is not the same as a dribbler being fouled with a hand check ...

They are the same in regard such that they are both, by rule definition, a common foul.

4-19-2: A common foul is a personal foul which is neither flagrant nor intentional nor committed against a player trying or tapping for a field goal nor a part of a double, simultaneous or multiple foul.

Quote:

Originally Posted by billyu2 (Post 1042001)

As officials, we have to make that logical distinction even though the rule book may not specifically make if for us. Ruling an intentional foul is the only solution that correctly negates that possibility.

Fully agree. Purpose and intent. One may not even need purpose and intent. The rule definition of an intentional foul (contact that neutralizes opponent’s obvious advantageous position, having an unhindered try) is pretty clear and seems to fit this situation nicely.

Quote:

Originally Posted by billyu2 (Post 1042001)

... the possibility of a free thrower being fouled in the act of shooting and the only penalty being the ball awarded out of bounds for a throw in.

Only? Assuming not yet in the bonus, it's not the only penalty: If missed, substitute free throw after delayed violation for distraction (hindering). Additional personal foul toward disqualification. Additional team foul toward the bonus, or double bonus.

[QUOTE=BillyMac;1042002]They are the same in regard such that they are both, by rule definition, a common foul.

4-19-2: A common foul is a personal foul which is neither flagrant nor intentional nor committed against a player trying or tapping for a field goal nor a part of a double, simultaneous or multiple foul.

Bill, many years ago I read an article where a man tried using his Sears Craftsman lawn mower to trim the hedges and seriously injured himself. He sued Sears by pointing out that Sears failed to include in the instructions not to use the lawn mower to trim hedges. In basketball, millions and millions of free throws have been taken over the years. How many times has a free throw shooter ever been fouled IN THE ACT OF SHOOTING during those millions of free throws? Who would reasonably expect that maybe the NFHS should have included "free throw" along with "field goal" in the instructions of Rule 4-19-2? Stupid NFHS? No. Stupid basketball officials? You make the call. :)

Once In A Bazillion Situation ...

Quote:

Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 1041954)

2015-2016 NFHS Interpretations 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)

Quote:

Originally Posted by billyu2 (Post 1042016)

How many times has a free throw shooter ever been fouled in the act of shooting during those millions of free throws? Who would reasonably expect that maybe the NFHS should have included "free throw" along with "field goal" in the instructions of Rule 4-19-2?

Theresia Wynns, the NFHS Basketball Rulebook editor in 2015-16. She considered a similar (but not exactly the same, pre-release, post-release) situation.

Although an additional interpretation, or casebook play, would be nice for this once in a bazillion situation, the rule language is already there for either a common foul, or an intentional foul. Although one can quibble about the rationale, appropriateness, or fairness (but not the rule language) of a common foul interpretation, one can't argue (easy peasy lemon squeezy) about the adjudication of an intentional foul (contact that neutralizes opponent’s obvious advantageous position) in this situation.

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