No More Offensive Goaltending ...

[BillyMac]

In the context of Rule 10-4-8, the "officials discussions" confirm that despite the philosophical shift away from "offensive goaltending" for field goals, the technical foul penalty for interfering with a free throw is intentionally preserved because the act is seen as fundamentally disrupting a critical, non-live-ball scoring attempt, warranting a severe penalty.

Got this (above) from Gemini Artificial Intelligence.

Artificial Intelligence will seldom admit that it doesn't know an answer and has been known to "hallucinate".

Certainly not in any way reliable.

"Officials discussions" may, in fact, refer to the Official Forum and other similar websites.

Asked for specifics (case plays, citations, etc.), hopefully from NFHS, and got little, just got this:

Rule 10-4-9 (or Art. 9): Specifically prohibits a player from committing goaltending during a free throw.

Simple question: Is it still a technical foul (and a free throw violation) for an offensive player to "goaltend" (the action, not the definition) a free throw?

Why do I keep running into brick walls regarding this very simple question?

I would prefer a yes answer, but I would fully accept a no answer from a reliable source, preferably the NFHS, maybe even IAABO.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

In the context of Rule 10-4-8, the "officials discussions" confirm that despite the philosophical shift away from "offensive goaltending" for field goals, the technical foul penalty for interfering with a free throw is intentionally preserved because the act is seen as fundamentally disrupting a critical, non-live-ball scoring attempt, warranting a severe penalty.

Got this (above) from Gemini Artificial Intelligence.

Stopped reading right there.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Stopped reading right there.

I'm grasping at straws here.

Was hoping to get a link to a reliable source from Gemini AI, not an "answer" from Gemini AI itself. Gemini AI just restated the rule that it is a technical foul to goaltend a free throw.

Also tried ChatGPT, again looking for a link to a reliable source, didn't get a link to a reliable source, other than a statement regarding "no more offensive goaltending".

I broached this with my local interpreter (who also happens to be our state interpreter) who replied that offensive goaltending a free throw was an extremely rare sitation but that it would be discussed with other Connecticut local interpreters, never heard back other than the possibility of charging an "unsporting" technical foul ( "... not limited to ...") for such an act.

Raymond gave us a great interpretation of this (touch) being the end of the free throw and a free throw violation (ten seconds) and I was happy with that (no technical foul) until IAABO recently came up with a "word salad" about a clarification regarding free throw goaltending.

Simple question: Is it still a technical foul (unsporting or otherwise) and a free throw violation for an offensive player to "goaltend" (the action, not the definition) a free throw?

[BillyMac]

Offensive goaltending on a free throw will never happen!

Why discuss it?

The NFHS obviously felt that such a situation could happen with two past very bizarre casebook plays.

These are examples of the NFHS at its worst.

9.12 SITUATION B: On the second of two free-throw attempts by A1, the ball is touched outside the cylinder by A2. RULING: No points can be scored. A2’s actions are ruled a violation. B will be given the ball for a throw-in on the sideline at the free-throw line extended. (9-1 Penalty 1)

9.12 SITUATION B: On the second of two free-throw attempts by A1, the ball is touched outside the cylinder by A2. RULING: No points can be scored. A2’s actions are ruled a violation. B will be given the ball for a throw-in from the designated out of bounds spot nearest the violation. (9-1 Penalty 1)

https://forum.officiating.com/basket...ml#post1039858

[SNIPERBBB]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Gemini Artificial Intelligence.

Artificial Intelligence will seldom admit that it doesn't know an answer and has been known to "hallucinate".

Certainly not in any way reliable.

AI is worse than straight asking google for the rules. We keep trying to tell coaches and fans to stop using google to look up the rules, we definitely dont need to start asking it. I dont know if I'd even trust an AI model that was trained completely only with the most current rule, case book and interpretations.

I had a coach a few years ago after I whacked his assistant for insulting my partner try to tell me that he could still use the coaches box because it wasn't him that got the technical. Couple minutes later after apparently pulling out the phone he started saying he looked it up on google and continued to argue saying that I was wrong. well he got his own T so he definitely got to sit down after that.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by SNIPERBBB

AI is worse than straight asking google for the rules. We keep trying to tell coaches and fans to stop using google to look up the rules, we definitely dont need to start asking it. I dont know if I'd even trust an AI model that was trained completely only with the most current rule, case book and interpretations.

I had a coach a few years ago after I whacked his assistant for insulting my partner try to tell me that he could still use the coaches box because it wasn't him that got the technical. Couple minutes later after apparently pulling out the phone he started saying he looked it up on google and continued to argue saying that I was wrong. well he got his own T so he definitely got to sit down after that.

👍

MTD, Sr.