Rules Puzzler: Fouling a FT shooter

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I can certainly understand an intentional foul, but not for the reason you stated.

It's a common foul (according to existing rules). Follow the prescribed penalties (according to existing rules).

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.

[/I]

I would suggest that contacting a free-thrower is neutralizing an obvious advantageous position.....a FT is clearly an advantageous position since it should be an unhindered shot. It shouldn't be blockable (the GT rule agrees). And the shooter shouldn't be fouled while shooting.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I would suggest that contacting a free-thrower is neutralizing an obvious advantageous position.....a FT is clearly an advantageous position since it should be an unhindered shot. It shouldn't be blockable (the GT rule agrees). And the shooter shouldn't be fouled while shooting.

Agree (again).

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I can certainly understand an intentional foul ...

Just be careful stating that the rules do not provide for any free throw penalty for such a situation, because they actually do (if considered a common foul, which it actually is if one deems it not to be intentional, which one probably shouldn't do (not deem intentional).

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I would suggest that contacting a free-thrower is neutralizing an obvious advantageous position.....a FT is clearly an advantageous position since it should be an unhindered shot. It shouldn't be blockable (the GT rule agrees). And the shooter shouldn't be fouled while shooting.

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: A player must not: Commit goaltending during a free throw.

If goaltending a free throw is a technical foul instead of a violation, shouldn't fouling a free thrower be a technical foul instead of a intentional foul (makes a difference, who shoots, inbound spot)?

Or can it not be technical because the ball is live and it's a contact foul? Thus leaving us with an intentional foul.

[billyu2]

This situation was brought up a few years ago and I remember it being suggested this should be considered an intentional foul based on the rule stipulating free throws must be unhindered attempts to score. In Cameron's post, the shooter was in the act of shooting when the contact occurred and therefore, hindered by contact. If the ball had been released, the contact could be ruled incidental or a common foul since in most cases the act of shooting would have ended. (Exception: airborne shooter) The clincher for me though is that continuous motion also applies to free throws. However, by rule, we cannot award the fouled FT shooter 1 free throw if the original was missed or an "and 1" if the original FT was good. Likewise if we rule this a common foul, where is the rule basis for awarding a FT shooter (fouled in the act of shooting) a 1 and 1 or double bonus or nothing at all if Team A is not in the bonus. By elimination, we are left with an intentional foul.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by billyu2

... this should be considered an intentional foul based on the rule stipulating free throws must be unhindered attempts to score ... if we rule this a common foul, where is the rule basis for awarding a FT shooter (fouled in the act of shooting) a 1 and 1 or double bonus or nothing at all if Team A is not in the bonus ...

Agree on intentional foul.

However there are existing rules in place (other than an intentional foul) to award free throws in this situation. Remember a free thrower is not a "player trying for a field goal". By rule, a free thrower fouled is the same as a ball handler being hand checked; a common foul with penalties listed.

It's the rule, but doesn't seem "right", and provides yet another reason to go with an intentional foul.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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.

Rule 10 Penalties Summary
1. No free throws:
a. For each common foul before the bonus rule is in effect.
3. Bonus free throw:
a. For seventh, eighth and ninth team foul each half, if first free throw is successful.
b. Beginning with 10th team foul each half whether or not first free throw is successful.

7-5-4-A: Designated out-of-bounds spot throw-in nearest the foul: After a common foul prior to the bonus rule being in effect.

A further extrapolation of this interpretation would be helpful (what happens next?): 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)

It's a foul. Doesn't tell us what type.

Lane spaces unoccupied. So Team A will either get free throw(s), and/or the ball back for a throwin.

Questions left unanswered.

[billyu2]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Agree on intentional foul.

However there are existing rules in place to award free throws in this situation. Remember a free thrower is not a "player trying for a field goal". By rule, a free thrower fouled is the same as a ball handler being hand checked; a common foul with penalties listed.
It's the rule, but doesn't seem "right", and provides yet another reason to go with an intentional foul.



A further extrapolation of this interpretation would be helpful (what happens next?): 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)

It's a foul. Doesn't tell us what type.

Lane spaces unoccupied. So Team A will either get free throw(s), and/or the ball back for a throwin.

Questions left unanswered.

Disagree with your interpretation (in bold). A free thrower fouled in the act of shooting is not the same as a dribbler being fouled with a hand check. A free thrower NO LONGER in the act of shooting (ball released as in Situation 2 above) would be the same as a dribbler being hand checked with the same penalty regarding bonus free throws or not following the free throw. Think about dead ball. If a foul is called for hand checking (common foul), when does the ball become dead? If a FT shooter is fouled in the act of shooting, when does the ball become dead? By rule continuous motion is what applies and equates a free throw with a try or tap for a field goal. A foul on a free thrower in the act of shooting cannot be penalized like a common foul. As officials, we have to make that logical distinction even though the rule book may not specifically make if for us considering the absurdity of it ever happening. Even so, the possibility exists 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. Ruling an intentional foul is the only solution that correctly negates that possibility.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by billyu2

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.

Originally Posted by billyu2

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.

Originally Posted by billyu2

... 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.

[billyu2]

[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.