Free throw Question

[Jeff the Ref]

A1 to attempt two free throws. B1 in marked lane space fakes as if to enter the lane. A1 then releases the ball an misses the rim. No disconcertion was involved. Official rules this a double violation.

Answer key says NO.

My question is "what do we have" and how do we restart after the free throw fails to hit the rim.

[Edited by Jeff the Ref on Nov 16th, 2004 at 08:15 AM]

[Jurassic Referee]

If there was no violation by B1 for disconcertion, then the only violation would be on A1 for not hitting the ring. FT is no good. A1 now shoots his 2nd. FT.

[Rick Durkee]

Rule 9-1-4 states in part, "...nor shall any player in a marked lane space fake to cause an opponent to violate." That means that the fake is only a violation if it causes another player to commit what would otherwise have been a violation. I have been reading that to mean that a player couldn't fake with intent, but the words "fake to" should really be interpreted as "fake and". I know some officials that post on this board discourage working outside the strict interpretation of the rules, but it seems silly that we should watch a player on the lane contiuously try to get away with faking. If I saw the fake more than once, I think I will find a way to call it disconcertion to discourage the behavior.

Rick

[mick]

Originally posted by Rick Durkee
Rule 9-1-4 states in part, "...nor shall any player in a marked lane space fake to cause an opponent to violate." That means that the fake is only a violation if it causes another player to commit what would otherwise have been a violation. I have been reading that to mean that a player couldn't fake with intent, but the words "fake to" should really be interpreted as "fake and". I know some officials that post on this board discourage working outside the strict interpretation of the rules, but it seems silly that we should watch a player on the lane contiuously try to get away with faking. If I saw the fake more than once, I think I will find a way to call it disconcertion to discourage the behavior.

Rick

Rick,
Why wait for the second fake, before you call the violation?
mick

[Rick Durkee]

I guess my brain got stuck looking at the question, and it said there was no disconcertion. If the movement was "mild" enough that it is not considered disconcertion, I would try a "No more of that!" type of comment before calling it. If it was overt, I think it's disconcerting, and I call right off.

[mick]

Originally posted by Rick Durkee
I guess my brain got stuck looking at the question, and it said there was no disconcertion. If the movement was "mild" enough that it is not considered disconcertion, I would try a "No more of that!" type of comment before calling it. If it was overt, I think it's disconcerting, and I call right off.

Yeah, the post makes it sound like B1 was trying to feint a non-shooting opponent.
mick

[IAABO_Ref]

Penalizing a fake applies if the defensive team fakes and an offensive player in a marked lane space or the shooter then violates then the second violation is not penalized. So in this case you have a violation on B for the fake causing the shooter to violate. The fact that the player faked is a violation. Disconcertion was only thrown in to muddy the water.

Rule reference:
9-1- penalty 4d

[Rick Durkee]

IAABO_REF,

Penalty 9-4-d only refers to the fake causing a "teammate of the thrower to violate", and not the thrower. What about Penalty section B? If you are saying that the fake itself is a violation, then, without disconcertion, it has to be a double violation as described in Penalty B.

Rick

[Edited by Rick Durkee on Nov 17th, 2004 at 08:09 AM]

[Nevadaref]

Ok, since people are unclear on this, I'll type the exact wording of the rule:
9-1-4 "The free thrower shall not fake a try, nor shall any player in a marked lane space fake to cause an opponent to violate."

In my opinion, the fake itself does not constitute a violation, an opponent must be caused to violate for the fake to be a violation. I believe that because of the use of the word "cause" in the rule, if the NFHS had wanted the fake itself to be a violation they would have used words such as "in an attempt to" or "with the intent to."

Therefore, if the official does not believe that the fake by the player along the lane caused the free thrower to violate by shooting an airball, the player in the marked lane space did not commit a violation and should not be penalized. That is why the answer key states this is not a double violation.

I will end this post by stating that I think this is a bad rule and should be changed so that the fake itself is a violation. But again that is just my opinion.

[IAABO_Ref]

You're right. It should be a double violation. I miss read d and b clearly says that it's a double. Sometimes we shouldn't go away from what we "know" is right. It looks to me like a miss print on the NFHS part.

[Edited by IAABO_Ref on Nov 17th, 2004 at 08:26 AM]