Free throw Situation

[Indianaref]

This below situation was brought up last night at our association meeting. The conclusion was the crew handled this ok.

"From my JV boys game this week (2 man): B1 fouls A1 during a shot right at the 1st QTR buzzer, my whistle and the horn are damn near on top of each other; my partner and I talk, clear the lanes for 2FTs by A1 with 0:00 on clock; I report to the table and share info with coaches; partner administers FTs but B team cheerleaders enter the floor at division line as A1 is in his shooting motion; he misses the shot, cheerleaders are then removed; he makes the 2nd shot and heads back to his bench; my partner and I talk again and agree we need to provide A1 with another FT as first FT took place with illegal personnel on the floor; we talk to both coaches and A1 makes the FT… "

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Indianaref

... B1 fouls A1 during a shot right at the 1st QTR buzzer, my whistle and the horn are damn near on top of each other; my partner and I talk, clear the lanes for 2FTs by A1 with 0:00 on clock; I report to the table and share info with coaches; partner administers FTs but B team cheerleaders enter the floor at division line as A1 is in his shooting motion; he misses the shot, cheerleaders are then removed; he makes the 2nd shot and heads back to his bench; my partner and I talk again and agree we need to provide A1 with another FT as first FT took place with illegal personnel on the floor; we talk to both coaches and A1 makes the FT ...

The usual debate on the Forum regarding free throw distraction has been about opponents (bench versus five players), not fans.

I consider cheerleaders fans (with rare exception, i.e., megaphones).

Doesn't matter if they're home or visitor, they aren't opponents.

Since this is not specifically covered in the rules:

2-3: The referee must make decisions on any points not specifically covered in the rules.

Let the referee decide if the free throw shooter was really distracted (hindered) by the cheerleaders (fans) on the playing court and rule accordingly.

4-20: A free throw is the opportunity given a player to score one point by an unhindered try for goal ...

What would we would normally do regarding any "possible" free throw distraction? It's a judgment call.

The fans in the bleachers can distract all they want at the discretion of game management, but once the fans (including cheerleaders) come onto the playing court, that becomes our problem to deal with.

In regard to the order of the free throws. Ruling, or not ruling, distraction is not a correctable error situation, but I believe that this situation would also fall under 2-3.

Also:

2-13: If the red light fails to illuminate and the timer’s signal fails to sound, or is not recognized by the officials, the timer must go onto the court or use other means to immediately notify the nearest official. If in the meantime, a goal has been made or a foul has occurred, the referee must consult the timer:
ART. 2 If table officials agree that the quarter or extra period ended, as in 5-6-2 before the foul occurred, the foul must be disregarded, unless it was intentional or flagrant.
ART. 3 If table officials disagree, the goal must count and/or the foul must be penalized, unless the referee has knowledge which alters such ruling.

[BryanV21]

If the shooter was distracted then I don't see the problem with administering another FT, as the cheerleaders were on the court.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

If the shooter was distracted then I don't see the problem with administering another FT, as the cheerleaders were on the court.

I do. That is incorrect and has no rules support.
Cheerleaders and mascots are not opponents and cannot be charged with distraction. Also, they are not permitted to be on the court (inbounds) other than during a full time-out or intermission.

Since there is no time on the clock, it is reasonable to believe that the cheerleaders would think that the quarter was over and that this was an intermission and take the court. In such a case, the administering official noticed them on the floor prior to administering the FT and have them removed without penalty. However, the OP writes that they ran out onto the court after the player had the ball, hence there is there only one remedy—a technical foul.

This situation is similar to a spectator throwing something onto the court during a FT attempt. We cannot simply give a replacement throw because the offender doesn’t fall within the required category of an opponent. We must charge a technical foul. That has clear rules support and is the correct call.

[Nevadaref]

Another point to mention: once the second FT attempt occurs, it is too late to go back and penalize for something which happened during the first attempt. The game has moved on.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Indianaref

B1 fouls A1 during a shot right at the 1st QTR buzzer, my whistle and the horn are damn near on top of each other ...

Most likely the illegal contact occurred a spit second before the sound of the whistle (reaction time).

The illegal contact makes the ball dead, the sound of the whistle (and fist signal) stops the clock.

6-7-7: The ball becomes dead, or remains dead, when: A foul ... occurs ...

5-8-1-A: Time-out occurs and the clock, if running, must be stopped when an official: Signals: A foul ...

[BryanV21]

Throwing something on the court and cheerleaders coming onto the court are different things. Cheerleaders are allowed on the court during certain situations, as you pointed out... But throwing anything on the court is never allowed. So I don't agree that the two situations can be treated the same.

If you deem cheerleaders as bench personnel then I can support a technical foul, but the fact is this situation is different and falls on the officials to make a decision that needs to be addressed but is not made clear by the book.

I certainly believe things could have been handled differently, like taking care of the situation at the time it occurred, but I believe some game management was necessary as well.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

In regard to the order of the free throws. Ruling, or not ruling, distraction is not a correctable error situation, but I believe that this situation would also fall under 2-3.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Another point to mention: once the second FT attempt occurs, it is too late to go back and penalize for something which happened during the first attempt. The game has moved on.

Originally Posted by BryanV21

I certainly believe things could have been handled differently, like taking care of the situation at the time it occurred ...

This part of the situation could have been handled better. Why wasn't the first free throw (a miss) deemed distracted (hindered) under 2-3? It was only after the second free throw was made that the first free throw (the miss) was deemed distracted (hindered).

Can't figure out why the cheerleaders weren't sent back to their off court positions before the first free throw. Once that was not observed, or observed and ignored (allowed), this entire messy situation is best handled under 2-3.

Definitely not a correctable error situation. Definitely not a normal free throw distraction situation. Cheerleaders are definitely not team members for the purpose of opponents distracting, or for the purpose of a technical foul.

Situations like this are why Rule 2-3 was invented.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Cheerleaders and mascots ... are not permitted to be on the court (inbounds) other than during a full time-out or intermission ... they ran out onto the court after the player had the ball, hence there is there only one remedy—a technical foul.

Not sure a technical foul is appropriate. They just can't do it. Send them back off the court.

Same thing with band playing at times other than pregame, time-outs, intermission, and post-game. They just can't do it. Tell them to stop.

Except in very rare circumstances, let game management deal with fans of all types: students, parents, home, visitor, cheerleaders, mascots, band members, etc.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Except in very rare circumstances, let game management deal with fans of all types: students, parents, home, visitor, cheerleaders, mascots, band members, etc.

2.8.1 SITUATION: What guidelines should be exercised by the officials when spectators’ actions are such that they interfere with the administration of the game? RULING: The rules book states “the official may rule fouls on either team if its supporters act in such a way as to interfere with the proper conduct of the game.” It is significant to note the word used is “may.” This gives permission, but does not in any way imply that officials must call technical fouls on team followers or supporters for unsporting acts. Thus, while officials do have the authority to penalize a team whose spectators interfere with the proper conduct of the game, this authority must be used with extreme caution and discretion. While the authority is there, the official must rarely use it, because experience has demonstrated that calling hasty technical fouls on the crowd rarely solves the problem and may, in fact, result in penalizing the wrong team because the official may not have proper knowledge as to which team's supporters were responsible for the unsporting act.

5.4.1 SITUATION B: The covering official rules a double foul on the post player and opponent after both push and shove each other. It is the fifth foul on each player. Some spectators in the crowd react vocally in a negative manner while others throw paper cups, etc., on the floor. The entire crowd seems to be in a hostile mood. What should the officials do? RULING: The officials must ask game -management or home management to control the spectators. The officials have authority to charge a technical foul(s) if it can be determined which team’s spectators are involved. However, much discretion is necessary in this case and the officials must be aware that a technical foul(s) on spectators usually leads to even more problems. COMMENT: The game should not be forfeited to either team because of the action of spectators. If game or home management cannot restore order by removal or other means, the officials are authorized to suspend play. The game would then be continued from the point of interruption, unless the teams agree to terminate the game with the existing score, or there are conference, league or state association rules which apply.

1.18 SITUATION: In (a), the band from the home team is playing during a live ball; (b) the electronic scoreboard is playing broken-glass sound effects just after an opponent's missed field-goal attempt; or (c) fans from the visiting team are using artificial noisemakers during an opponent's attempted free throw. RULING: All situations are prohibited by rule. The officials should notify game management in (a) to instruct the band to only play during the permitted times; in (b) to instruct the scoreboard operator to cease the prohibited acts; and in (c) to have a public-address announcement made stating that the use of any artificial noisemakers is prohibited at all times. In all situations, if the problem continues it may result in a technical foul being assessed to the team supporter(s).

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

Throwing something on the court and cheerleaders coming onto the court are different things. Cheerleaders are allowed on the court during certain situations, as you pointed out... But throwing anything on the court is never allowed. So I don't agree that the two situations can be treated the same.

If you deem cheerleaders as bench personnel then I can support a technical foul, but the fact is this situation is different and falls on the officials to make a decision that needs to be addressed but is not made clear by the book.

I certainly believe things could have been handled differently, like taking care of the situation at the time it occurred, but I believe some game management was necessary as well.

Sigh, one cannot “manage” a situation which has unfairly impacted one team nor can one make up a way of addressing it when a remedy is clearly provided for in the rules. (Note to BillyMac: this is why 2-3 is not applicable here.)

Cheerleaders are not bench personnel. They are team supporters and it is crystal clear which team they represent. They are spectators with the special privilege of entering the court at specified times. If the do something which unfairly impacts the game, then the NFHS rules provide a remedy. As I’ve already stated the proper remedy is a technical foul and BillyMac has now posted two play rulings supporting that. You will find nothing stating to issue a replacement FT. Why? Because that’s not how the rules deal with misbehaving spectators.

One of the casebook rulings demonstrates that game management can be informed to put a stop to the improper behavior, and that can be done without the penalty of a technical foul, if no negative impact to the game has occurred. However, if fairness has been infringed, then the only way to restore that balance is to charge the technical foul.

So if the band is playing while the opposing team has the ball, play can be halted and the illegal behavior can be stopped without any serious injustice having been suffered, but if a team loses a FT opportunity or a wide-open layup near the end of a quarter because cheerleaders run out onto the floor, you need to ask yourself would it be fair to just have game administration tell them to not do that again? When an opportunity has unfairly been lost, the technical foul is the proper manner to restore the balance.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Cheerleaders are not bench personnel. They are team supporters and it is crystal clear which team they represent. They are spectators with the special privilege of entering the court at specified times. If the do something which unfairly impacts the game, then the NFHS rules provide a remedy. As I’ve already stated the proper remedy is a technical foul ... You will find nothing stating to issue a replacement FT. Why? Because that’s not how the rules deal with misbehaving spectators.

Nevadaref, as usual, makes a sound argument.

One fly in the ointment, what if it was a visitor player shooting the free throws and it was the visitor cheerleaders on the court distracting the visitor player? So he doesn't get a replacement free throw and the home team gets two free throws? That certainly doesn't seem fair.

With all due respect, I like my remedy a little better.

[Nevadaref]

Billy,
Let me ask you this?
During a normal FT attempt, A1 is preparing to shoot, while his teammate A2 in a marked lane space is clapping his hands. A1 attempts the FT and misses. Do you have a distraction call?
Answer: Of course not. Distraction must be by an opponent. Why? Because the NFHS doesn’t want a team member to be unfairly distracted. If one of his own does something silly, then that is that team’s own issue.

Now let’s look what you just asked.
B1 is shooting the first FT of two when a cheerleader from Team B comes out onto the court and causes a distracting situation. Does B1 get a replacement FT? Of course not. Again this is not an opponent, so distraction is not a possible call.
Now should this be a technical foul? Did the action unfairly impact the game? While we could assess a technical foul and award Team A two FTs for the infringement of entering the court at an unpermitted time, that would be overly harsh because the team which would receive the benefit of the 2 FTs didn’t lose out on anything by the transgression. Therefore, it would be appropriate to have the cheerleader removed from the court and allow game administration to counsel her on when she is allowed to be out there and when not.
In short, if Team A wasn’t harmed in any way by the cheerleader’s transgression, then they have no real need for a remedy.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

During a normal FT attempt, A1 is preparing to shoot, while his teammate A2 in a marked lane space is clapping his hands. A1 attempts the FT and misses. Do you have a distraction call?

No, because I consider A2 to be a teammate and not an opponent. I consider cheerleaders to be neither teammates nor are they opponents, they're fans (with rare exceptions), and this situation is not a "normal" distracted (hindered) free thrower situation "specifically covered in the rules".

[BryanV21]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Sigh, one cannot “manage” a situation which has unfairly impacted one team nor can one make up a way of addressing it when a remedy is clearly provided for in the rules. (Note to BillyMac: this is why 2-3 is not applicable here.)



Cheerleaders are not bench personnel. They are team supporters and it is crystal clear which team they represent. They are spectators with the special privilege of entering the court at specified times. If the do something which unfairly impacts the game, then the NFHS rules provide a remedy. As I’ve already stated the proper remedy is a technical foul and BillyMac has now posted two play rulings supporting that. You will find nothing stating to issue a replacement FT. Why? Because that’s not how the rules deal with misbehaving spectators.



One of the casebook rulings demonstrates that game management can be informed to put a stop to the improper behavior, and that can be done without the penalty of a technical foul, if no negative impact to the game has occurred. However, if fairness has been infringed, then the only way to restore that balance is to charge the technical foul.



So if the band is playing while the opposing team has the ball, play can be halted and the illegal behavior can be stopped without any serious injustice having been suffered, but if a team loses a FT opportunity or a wide-open layup near the end of a quarter because cheerleaders run out onto the floor, you need to ask yourself would it be fair to just have game administration tell them to not do that again? When an opportunity has unfairly been lost, the technical foul is the proper manner to restore the balance.

The term "bench personnel" could absolutely include cheerleaders (see the pic of the rulebook app below).

And I wasn't saying you were wrong, but for game management purposes (something that is emphasized plenty in those interpretations/cases) re-administering the free throw is a fine option. Maybe it's not crystal clear in the book, but support for that can certainly be found.

And how about we be a tad more respectful?

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk