No More Offensive Goaltending ...

[BillyMac]

Alternating possession arrow is pointing toward A’s basket.

A1 is fouled in the act of shooting a successful field goal attempt and is awarded one free throw.

After A1 releases the free throw attempt, knucklehead A2, from a marked lane space, trying to impress his cheerleader girlfriend, grabs the ball while it’s outside the imaginary cylinder and dunks it.

This is not a free throw violation.

As soon as A2 touched the ball, it ended the free throw (by definition) and the ball became dead, thus no point(s) are awarded to A1, nor to A2.

No more offensive goaltending, so no more technical foul for this act during a free throw.

Now what?

When A2 touched the ball the ball became dead with neither team in control, so go the alternating possession arrow, allowing Team A will get the ball for a throwin under their own basket.

Does this seem fair?

Was this the purpose and intent of recent rule change of no more offensive goaltending?

For the past (at least) forty-four years, this (goaltending a free throw) has been technical foul with the harsh penalty of no Team A point for the free throw, two free throws by the best free throw shooter(s) on Team B, and Team B being awarded the ball at the division line for a throwin.

Now, under this circumstance, while there will be no Team A point for the free throw, Team A will benefit by getting the ball for a throwin under their own basket.

Never happen?

Probably true for the past (at least) forty-four years, but what if Team A was down by three with one second to go the game?

Did the NFHS even consider this situation while considering this recent rule change?

Did something fall through the cracks?

Unintended consequence?

My local IAABO interpreter suggested we consider this an unsporting act and penalize accordingly.

“Not limited to” is subjective and open ended and thus subject to various individual interpretations.

Perhaps the NFHS can get out of this mess with an actual written interpretation in the casebook, or at least as an annual interpretation, of this being an unsporting act.

[BillyMac]

My suggested case play:

Situation: After A1 releases a free throw attempt, A2, from a marked lane space, grabs the ball while it’s outside the imaginary cylinder and dunks the ball. Ruling: When A2 touched the ball the free throw ended and the ball became dead so no point(s) are awarded. A2 is charged with a technical foul. This action is considered to be an unsporting act. If A1 is due additional free throw(s), they will be attempted with the lane cleared. Any player(s), or eligible substitute(s), on Team B will attempt two free throws and Team B will be awarded the ball at the division line opposite the table for a throwin.

[bob jenkins]

I always thought it was weird that if B grabbed the ball just outside the cylinder, it was GT and a T, but if B grabbed the ball just in the cylinder, it was just BI.

Maybe the play that led to the rule scores of years ago was more of a routine "block" of the FT and nothing weird has happened since.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Maybe the play that led to the rule of years ago was more of a routine "block" of the FT and nothing weird has happened since.

Bingo, but only for the defense.

Who would block a teammate's shot?

Unless the shooter was about to break the "goaltender's" personal points record?

We still have defensive goaltending (on a free throw, or otherwise) that leads to a technical foul for such on a free throw.

My situation was for the offense "goaltending" (quotes because it's only the act itself, not longer by definition) a free throw.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Situation: After A1 releases a free throw attempt, A2, from a marked lane space, grabs the ball while it’s outside the imaginary cylinder and dunks the ball. Ruling: When A2 touched the ball the free throw ended and the ball became dead so no point(s) are awarded. A2 is charged with a technical foul. This action is considered to be an unsporting act. If A1 is due additional free throw(s), they will be attempted with the lane cleared. Any player(s), or eligible substitute(s), on Team B will attempt two free throws and Team B will be awarded the ball at the division line opposite the table for a throwin.

Anybody see any problems with my suggested casebook play?

I'm about to submit it run it up the ladder through the CIAC (Connecticut), IAABO, and eventually to the NFHS.

Is there an easier fix, maybe involving a free throw violation?

[Raymond]

The ball failed to hit the rim on a free throw attempt. Why can't we just call the violation on the shooting team?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

The ball failed to hit the rim on a free throw attempt. Why can't we just call the violation on the shooting team?

Good idea, seems simple, but the ball became dead as soon as it was touched by A2, and the free throw had ended.

Do we call a free throw violation after the free throw had ended?

Can we call a violation when the ball is already dead?

Do we call free throw violations on teams, or on individual players?

When the coach asks, "Who was the violation on?" (ball not touching the ring), do we answer A1 (shooter), or A2 (toucher)?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

The ball failed to hit the rim on a free throw attempt. Why can't we just call the violation on the shooting team?

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Good idea, seems simple ...

Nobody should be touching the ball during a free throw attempt, offense or defense.

Verboten!

That's why it's called a free throw, free of any interference.

Been that way for at least forty-four years, always very harshly penalized with a technical foul.

In regard to free throws, why change the rule?

If it ain't broke, don't fix it!

[Raymond]

If a teammate of the shooter prevents the ball from hitting the rim why wouldn't it be a violation. Quit trying to make it hard when it's very simple.

By your logic, you would be giving a ball back to the team who just committed the violation in the last second of a game. Just think about that using logical thinking.

Luckily you're not officiating at a level where this could happen. Because all those questions you ask are unnecessary. Teammate touches the ball before it gets to the ring on a free throw, the ball is dead and it's a violation. That's it. Done. You're the only one who wants to make it more complicated than it needs to be.