Rules Puzzler: Fouling a FT shooter

[Camron Rust]

This didn't happen, but it seems like an interesting play from a rules exploration perspective...

B has 4 team fouls. A1 is at the FT line shooting a FT. As we sometimes see occur, A1 is offset to one side, not centered on the FT line. B4 is in the lane space closest to the shooter.

As A1 is shooting the first FT, B4 has an arm extended directly out over the lane such that it makes contact with A1's arm during the FT attempt, prior to the release of the FT.

What do you do? What can you justify by rule?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

... seems like an interesting play from a rules exploration perspective ... A1 is at the FT line shooting a FT ... B4 is in the lane space closest to the shooter. As A1 is shooting the first FT, B4 has an arm extended directly out over the lane such that it makes contact with A1's arm during the FT attempt, prior to the release of the FT.

What do you do? What can you justify by rule?

Continuation exception? Distraction (hindered)? False multiple? Intentional?

How many free throws (not much help from the NFHS)?

Rule 10 Penalties Summary
2. One free throw if fouled in the act of shooting and two-point or three-point try or tap for field goal is successful.
5. Fouled in act of shooting and try or tap for field goal is unsuccessful:
a. Two free throws on two-point try or tap for field goal.
b. Three free throws on three-point try or tap for field goal.

Nice thread Camron Rust.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

As we sometimes see occur, A1 is offset to one side, not centered on the FT line.

Opponent in high school used to shoot free throws from the elbow. If I recall correctly, he believed that it helped with depth perception.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

This didn't happen, but it seems like an interesting play from a rules exploration perspective...

A has 4 team fouls. A1 is at the FT line shooting a FT. As we sometimes see occur, A1 is offset to one side, not centered on the FT line. B4 is in the lane space closest to the shooter.

As A1 is shooting the first FT, B4 has an arm extended directly out over the lane such that it makes contact with A1's arm during the FT attempt, prior to the release of the FT.

What do you do? What can you justify by rule?

Did you mean that Team B has 4 fouls in the half?

Anyway, fouling a player attempting a FT does not result in FTs being awarded as if this were a try for goal from the field. Your choices are to call a common foul and award a replacement FT based upon the distraction rule or to penalize with an intentional personal foul which would result in two additional FTs (and one could still award a replacement throw).

I don’t believe that a technical foul would be appropriate as this is a contact situation during a live ball, so the unsporting technical foul rule does not apply.

I’ve considered a similar situation in the past. The FT shooter utilizes a jumpshot for his attempts. The opponent enters the lane and then moves backward in an attempt to box out the shooter, but fouls him prior to the free-thrower returning to the floor. I pondered this scenario before the NFHS brought back the restriction on the defenders entering the FT semi-circle prior to the ball contacting the ring or backboard.

[BillyMac]

Note: Nevadaref's post sent me down this followup "break it down" research path. I'm surprised that the "King of Interpretations" didn't cite 2015-2016 NFHS Interpretations Situation 2 (even though it's incomplete)?

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)

So what happens next after the substitute free throw? What's the penalty for the illegal contact foul on a free thrower?

4-20-1: A free throw is the opportunity given a player to score one point by an unhindered try for goal from within the free-throw semicircle and behind the free-throw line.

4-41-2: A try for field goal is an attempt by a player to score two or three points by throwing the ball into a team’s own basket.

A free throw is not the same as a field goal. Fouling a free thrower must be 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 Nevadaref

Did you mean that Team B has 4 fouls in the half?

Is Team A in the bonus, or double bonus? If bonus, one and one. If double bonus, two free throws.

No bonus? Term A gets the ball on the endline on the lane line closest to the foul.

Of course, another line of thinking may be to go with an intentional foul (contact that neutralizes opponent’s obvious advantageous position). Simple straight forward penalty. Two free throws and the ball.

Common foul or intentional foul? What's a mother to do?

[BillyMac]

https://forum.officiating.com/basket...tml#post968572

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

So what happens next after the substitute free throw?

So let's peel another layer off the onion.

Free throw shooter's arms are on the endlne side of the free throw line when he's contacted. The free throw shooter has landed and is no longer an airborne shooter. Contact occurs before the free throw attempt hits the basket.

Violation? Substitute free throw if missed?

Common foul? Intentional foul? Incidental contact? Any one of the three choices (it depends)?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Did you mean that Team B has 4 fouls in the half?

Good catch...yes. I've corrected that.

And, like you suggested, I'm leaning towards intentional foul since, as you noted, the rules do not provide for any FTs as the penalty for such a case. The fact that it is a T to goaltend a FT, even on the way up, is a bit of a precedent for going to a stronger penalty for something that shouldn't happen.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I'm leaning towards intentional foul since, as you noted, the rules do not provide for any FTs as the penalty for such a case.

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.

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.

7-4-6: The ball is awarded out of bounds after: A common foul before the bonus rule is in effect.

4-8-1: A bonus free throw is the second free throw awarded for a common foul (except a player-control or team-control foul) as follows:
a. Beginning with a team’s seventh foul in each half and for the eighth and ninth foul, the bonus is awarded only if the first free throw is successful.
b. Beginning with a team’s 10th foul in each half, two free throws are awarded whether or not the first free throw is successful.

[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.