Tonight - V-girls game

Player comes to the line to shoot two free throws - bounces the ball twice, then stands erect and shoots the ball straight up over her head about 4-6 feet, catches it, bounces it two more times and then takes a normal free throw.

If the throwing of the ball had caused a defensive player to violate, I would have called disconcertion on the shooter I guess. She didn't really fake an attempt - or did she?

Whatcha got on this one?

First, only an opponent of the free thrower can commit a disconcertion violation.

Second, during the pre-game warm-ups did you observe the players when they practiced free throws. I am willing to bet dollars to donuts that this player did the same thing during practice. The short answer is that the free throw did nothing illegal.

MTD, Sr.

Well you were there, we were not. You would have to be the judge of that. But if I were you I would not nitpick that. They players cannot move anyway until the ball comes into the cylinder or hits something. They should not be coming in based solely on the motion of the shooter. It sounds like this is just a routine of the shooter.

Peace

Did she do this every time?

I did not observe the player shooting any free throws during practice, but to be honest, had been informed by another ref that she did it on ocasion. She only did it on the first of two attemps.

Mark - I agree with you that there is nothing in the federation rule book that adresses disconcertion by the shooter except faking a free throw.

I don't care if you were there or you were in a capsule orbitting the moon.

I got nuthin.

Dan - What would you have if a defensive player in a marked lane space violated when she threw the ball into the air?

Violation on the defense.

I've got nothing. Except maybe a close count on the 10 second violation.

And we called nothing, but it sure makes for some good discussion during halftime or postgame

Were you the Trail? If you were do you remember what the count was? Was probably pretty close. Thanks

T Jones

Actually Dan would signal a DELAYED violation on the defense.

Can't fake a throw
 

In practice, I got nothing, however, 9-4 says "the free thrower shall not fake a try, nor shall any player in a marked lane space fake to cause an opponent to violate."

Could you call this a fake, if one of the defenders violated? Just asking...

Re: Can't fake a throw
 

You could I suppose, but this used to be more of a problem when the players along the lane were allowed to break the plane on the release. As Rut said, they now have to wait until it hits the rim so I have a hard time seeing why they would enter so quick on a "fake."

Z

If she did the same motion without releasing the ball, would you whistle a faked attempt? Also, your words were she "shoots the ball". Sounds a like a good time for a whistle to me, especially 4 to 6 feet up in the air, in fact any shooting motion with the ball sounds questionable.
Lastly, if you were to allow it and she doesn't use this same motion everytime, that doesn't seem right either.

Fake??
 

Could it not be a faked attempt? Did it not fake out the player who violated? It really serves no purpose. If it were called a violation I could easily support the logic of it being a faked attempt as described by rule. I would error on the officials side yet I hear some that would penalize the opponent. I don't think that I can agree with that position. It seems like a pretty extreme pre shot routine. I have seen shooters spin the ball in their hands and practice a shot without the ball but not go through shooting motion and let the ball leave the hand. Sorry I cannot agree that this is not a faked attempt.

REALLY, YOU GUYS GOT NUTHIN?

Hard to beleive that this is not a fake. Routine or no routine, as described above, this was a shooting motion. How can you not judged that to be a fake attempt. Sure seems this one goes beyond any ritual or superstitious (sp) routine.

I stand corrected :)

Really.

It's not a fake. :)

As somebody else pointed out, the players along the lane, can't go in till the ball hits the rim or backboard, so even if she meant to fake, nobody's going to fall for it. She was practicing, not faking.

However, could we call the "practice" shot a FT attempt. A try begins with the habitual motion of the shooter. So it could be argued that in releasing the ball after the habitual motion, she actually took her FT. It was clearly unsuccessful. So she only has one shot left. :D

Call this and you are looking for trouble. Just because you find something in the rulebook, does not mean this is a situation that fits it. The players cannot enter the lane until the ball legally is in the cylinder. If a fake makes them enter the lane on a situation like this, then they were going to violate anyway.

I know I got NUTHIN here. Do not become over officiatious because you read an unusual situation in the rulebook.

Peace

A bitter and inhuman side of Chuck we rarely see.

http://www.mamfa.com/artworks/orozco/cruelty.jpg

It's not a fake. :)


However, could we call the "practice" shot a FT attempt. A try begins with the habitual motion of the shooter. So it could be argued that in releasing the ball after the habitual motion, she actually took her FT. It was clearly unsuccessful. So she only has one shot left.
[/B][/QUOTE]Can I be there when you call that? Huh? Huh? :D

It...
 

It is not a fake? That is one man's opinion!

Lots, well, several, players make a shooting motion , or bring the ball up then stop, before they shoot.

It's official judgment, but I'd have to be damn sure it was a fake before I called it.

ranjo, Did you think she was shooting the ball before it went straight up?

Why did the other referee feel the need to inform you of her motion? Was he not sure? And one more question, was this motion coincidental to lane violations?

(I am with you DJ and Robo. Sounds like a fake attempt to me.)

[Edited by SamIAm on Dec 3rd, 2004 at 02:15 PM]

Is this a new rule? I thought they could go in when the ball hit either the rim or the backboard. It can do either without ever being "in the cylinder".

If it just hits the backboard, don't we have a violation on the shooter?

Yup, but that's irrelevant to the question and answer. The point that Mark was making was that players on the lane can't enter the lane until the ball hits the backboard or the rim. They're too early if they enter when the ball is in the cone but hasn't hit the board or rim yet.

I find this explanation easier to swallow than any other. I certainly do not think one would be over officiatious if they considered the "fake" or "missed shot" for the extreme example given in the original sitch....but I cannot have nuthin.

<s>Rob</s> Chris, if you really think it would not be over-officious to follow my facecious suggestion, then you need to re-think a whole lotta things.

Why can you not take the advice of numerous very experienced and very good officials and "have nuthin"? It's nothing, please believe us.

[Edited by ChuckElias on Dec 3rd, 2004 at 10:17 PM]

At Varsity level, I have nuttin.

At middle school or jr. High, I would I would discreetly point out the action to the player and let them know it could be judged as a shot attempt.

At any level it is nothing.

MTD, Sr.

I was lead, and the shot was made well with-in the 10 second count

The other referee had seen the motion in a pre-season scrimmage and informed the player and coach the motion "could possibly" be considered a faked try by an official.

I was taken a little off guard, but have learned over the years to bite the Fox and not blow anything I can't explain.

Since she didn't do it on the second free throw, I would say it wasn't part of her normal routine.