Ooo, this was SO freaky, it makes me want to go back to Woodstock . . .

We were discussing what the varieties of this would be during free throw shooting between a couple of AAU games and, bongo, 5 minutes into the next game, guy goes up, gets clobbered, ball comes to rest on the flange. We wait, uno, dos, tres . . . five, no basket. Two shots, right? Even if the ball had 'lodged', 2 shots, correct? There's no effective difference between lodging and coming to rest on the flange. In both cases the ball becomes dead.

What we had been discussing earlier was what happens if the ball comes to rest during a foul shot? My personal interpretation (always a good bet, but not infallible, I can't believe that . . .) is that the ball is dead, the foul try is over. If 2 shots, on to the next shot. If one shot, opponents get the ball out of bounds on the endline, in the spot.

Yes?

No. If it's on the last FT, go with the arrow.

Rests on flange.
 

Ugh. Thatnk god it didn't happen yet. What is the rule reference, please?

Rule6-3-3(d) is the rule reference.

Jeff, it doesn't matter whether it's a shot or a FT that becomes lodged or comes to rest on the flange. It's an AP situation. Why should B get the ball? It's not a violation.

You'll find your reference in Rule 6.

I see the reference, thanks.
 

I had forgotten that coming to rest and lodging were defined as equivalent. If I had thought of it as 'lodging', I would have had less trouble with the law, if not its underpinnings.

I've never given it any thought, but now that I do, why should the shooter be exempted from the 'bad luck' of causing the ball to lodge, or come to rest up there, any more than from the bad luck of having the ball bounce off the rim and go out of bounds. Lighting is often uneven in gyms, balls are less than round, rims have different coefficients of friction (hehe, one of the reasons to get proper spin on a shot is to slow the ball down if it hits across the front of the rim). No one thinks there aren't going to be metal plates covering the holes for volleyball poles on some floors, and the occasional dribbler falls victim to that. The ball lodges, it rests up there, you caused it to become dead, Mr. or Mrs. Shooter. There's a whole lot of causation goin' on.

Of course, if you are dribbling and the valve in a ball let's go - I've never seen that - di you cause the ball to become (very) dead, or was it the first 23,546 bounces?

Fine. I give up. Possession arrow.

:)

Wait a sec
 

The original post states that the shooter "got clobbered." JeffTheRef - can we assume this means he got fouled?

If so, the ball coming to rest is inconsequential. You have 2 free throws, and the second is rebounded as normal. See 6.3.3(C) for this exact play.

To make sure I've got this right, if the ball becomes lodged on the first free throw then the first attempt is finished, administer second free throw (AP if One&One). If on second free throw then AP. Is this correct?

I don't have my rule book with me so I was not able to reference rule 6.

FYI - This is my first time posting but I've been reading & learning alot from you guys (and girls). The best thing about this forum is situations like these that hardly every happen but if they do I am now prepared for them.

That's correct. Rule 6-3-3(d) states <i>"In all jump-ball situations other than the start of the game and each extra period, an alternating possession throw-in shall result when a live ball lodges between the backboard and ring or comes to rest on the flange, unless a free throw or throw-in follows"</i>.

Welcome to the forum.

I won't speak for OMQ, and we haven't heard from nine01c lately, but it's been a long time since anyone called me a girl. No offense taken, though; it can be a pleasant surprise. Linguistically speaking, if you use "guys" for males, probably the best parallel for females would be "gals."

Oh, dear, perhaps that sounds a little snitty. I'm not always this "detail-oriented" about things. I've just got a big project that I need to work on this morning, and I'm procrastinating as long as possible.

I've read a decent amount of your posts rainmaker (Julie right?) and I should have been more careful with the reference to girls/gals :p. It was actually you I had in mind when I wrote (and girls) because I didn't want to leave you or any other female refs out.

Oh well that's what I get for trying :)

No, no I appreciate the effort. You got the cordial "good try" post. Be thankful you included any reference to females. If you hadn't, you'd be getting the "what rock did you crawl out from under?" response.

Seriously, I understand that it's not that big a deal for most people. It's not always a big deal for me. Today it was just a little deal, and no offense taken, and I hope none given. However, if I was too nasty, I apologize. I was still sort of smarting from a "disagreement" with my son's doctor, which....

never mind. I'll drop the whole thing, if you will.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by rainmaker

Quote:

Originally posted by cford I won't speak for OMQ, and we haven't heard from nine01c lately, but it's been a long time since anyone called me a girl. No offense taken, though; it can be a pleasant surprise. Linguistically speaking, if you use "guys" for males, probably the best parallel for females would be "gals." Oh, dear, perhaps that sounds a little snitty. I'm not always this "detail-oriented" about things.

http://www.handykult.de/plaudersmili...py/roflmao.gif

Juulie rocks!

You go, GIRL

Good idea, toots.