free throw shot question

[rocky]

My JV "sub" is at the free throw line for two shots. I know you guys/gals will find this hard to believe but he dribbles it off his foot (into the lane) he doesn't step over the line- he just stands there. the official returns the ball and states one shot remains. It is JV so --no big deal but really is this the correct ruling? and what if it had been a 1 and 1 foul shot--whose ball. possession arrow?
thanks folks

[bob jenkins]

THe official should blow the whistle, to avoid anyone enterig the lane and committing a violation. THen, the official should return the ball to the shooter, and caution him to be more careful. He still gets his shot (or, in this case, shots)

[Brian Watson]

There is no penalty on this, he still gets his shots.

[mick]

Originally posted by bob jenkins
THe official should blow the whistle, to avoid anyone enterig the lane and committing a violation. THen, the official should return the ball to the shooter, and caution him to be more careful. He still gets his shot (or, in this case, shots)

Bob,
I am not sure that, if a player on the lane went to retrieve the ball, I would call a lane violation, but otherwise, I, too, would return the ball to the free thrower.
mick

[joec]

Things happen when you least expect that they will. I think this happens at least once a year to many officials. Most of the time, the free thrower has a "deer in headlights" look when the ball caroms from his foot into the lane. Help him(her)out a little. Blow the whistle immediately and readminister. Rectify this before it becomes a lane violation. This is just good, preventative officiating. Allowing this to continue would be akin to perpetuating a mistake. Believe it or not, I had this happen in a varsity game 2 nights ago. Just my luck, I guess. Joe Calderazzo, Southwestern Indiana Officials' Association

[BktBallRef]

9.1B.

A1, at the free throw line to attempt a free throw (a) muffs the pass from the official and it rolls forward; or (b) accidentally drops the ball before the throwing motion is started. Ruling: In (a) and (b) the official should sound the whistle to prevent any violations and then start the free throw procedure again.

[mick]

Originally posted by BktBallRef
9.1B.

A1, at the free throw line to attempt a free throw (a) muffs the pass from the official and it rolls forward; or (b) accidentally drops the ball before the throwing motion is started. Ruling: In (a) and (b) the official should sound the whistle to prevent any violations and then start the free throw procedure again.

Tony,
I wonder what is the purpose of blowing the whistle.
mick

[JC]

I think the whistle is used to make the ball dead, and thus allow the official to ignore any violations that may occur on the lane, (e.g. a player stepping into the lane to retrieve the ball).

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by mick

Tony,
I wonder what is the purpose of blowing the whistle.
mick

Originally posted by JC
I think the whistle is used to make the ball dead, and thus allow the official to ignore any violations that may occur on the lane, (e.g. a player stepping into the lane to retrieve the ball).

Exactly.

[Leggs45]

This happened to me a couple of years ago in a kid's AAU basketball game. I blew the ball dead. Right after I blew my whistle, a kid (B1) stepped into the lane and retrieved the ball for me. If I had not blown the ball dead, we would have a double violation and would have had to go with the alt. posession arrow.

I spoke with some of my fellow officials and they said that it was the right call.

[Hawks Coach]

There are any number of situations in which the ball can become dead without your having blown the whistle. A person travels and then is fouled, with the foul occurring prior to you having whistled the travel. You don't have two calls, you have a travel because the ball was dead as soon as the travel occurred.

In almost all cases, an action causes the ball to become dead. The whistle signifies to the participants that the ball is dead, but does not make the ball dead. I think that Mick's point is, if the ball can become dead from a player losing control of it at the line, then it is dead at the moment control is lost, not the moment that the ref wakes up to the situation and blows the whistle. With or without a whistle, you should not have a lane violation. However, my response to Mick would be that the whistle makes it cleaner. It is used to signal to all participants and thus avoids any controversy, or any need for a discussion with your partner about whether or not the ball was dead.

[mick]

Originally posted by Hawks Coach


In almost all cases, an action causes the ball to become dead. The whistle signifies to the participants that the ball is dead, but does not make the ball dead. I think that Mick's point is, if the ball can become dead from a player losing control of it at the line, then it is dead at the moment control is lost, not the moment that the ref wakes up to the situation and blows the whistle. With or without a whistle, you should not have a lane violation. However, my response to Mick would be that the whistle makes it cleaner. It is used to signal to all participants and thus avoids any controversy, or any need for a discussion with your partner about whether or not the ball was dead.

Okay, Coach,
Nine players on the lane and one kid fumbles his free throw. I cannot envision a dog pile on that ball.
I do not blow my whistle without purpose, but in this case I must blow it because it is the proper mechanic.
mick

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by Hawks Coach
There are any number of situations in which the ball can become dead without your having blown the whistle. A person travels and then is fouled, with the foul occurring prior to you having whistled the travel. You don't have two calls, you have a travel because the ball was dead as soon as the travel occurred.

In almost all cases, an action causes the ball to become dead. The whistle signifies to the participants that the ball is dead, but does not make the ball dead. I think that Mick's point is, if the ball can become dead from a player losing control of it at the line, then it is dead at the moment control is lost, not the moment that the ref wakes up to the situation and blows the whistle. With or without a whistle, you should not have a lane violation. However, my response to Mick would be that the whistle makes it cleaner. It is used to signal to all participants and thus avoids any controversy, or any need for a discussion with your partner about whether or not the ball was dead.

Good point -- except that dropping the ball, or dribbling it off your foot, does not cause the ball to become dead during a "free throw" (or, more accurately, during that time period beginning when the ball is at the disposal of the free thrower and ending when s/he starts his/her try).

So, since the ball isn't yet dead, a violation can occur. The official must blow the whistle to make the ball dead and prevent a violation.

(And, to be clear, this is a "rule discussion" only -- in actuality, I doubt if I'd call a violation if someone happened to cross the line to get the ball before I could blow my whistle.)

[Edited by bob jenkins on Nov 28th, 2000 at 03:48 PM]

[joec]

I agree, Bob. I don't think I would want a game decided or even have a coach think it might be, based on this. We just need to use good, preventative officiating. All in all, coaches want fairness and consistency. Your post would exemplify, at least to me, both of those characteristics. I fully agree. Joe Calderazzo, Southwestern Indiana Officials' Association