free throw/basket interference

[jritchie]

Question:

A-1 attempted the second of two free throws and B-2 touched the ball while it was on the ring and prevented it from entering the basket. What is the call?
I know goal tending is a T on free throw, but is basket interference too, i don't think it is, so would you just award A1 with the point and let B take it out as any other free throw, no other penalties?

[ChuckElias]

Originally Posted by jritchie

I know goal tending is a T on free throw, but is basket interference too,

No.

i don't think it is,

You are correct, sir!

so would you just award A1 with the point and let B take it out as any other free throw, no other penalties?

Correct again!!

[refhoops]

I agree that all you have is BI and score the 1 point.
10-4-10 Player technical for goaltending a FT no mention or reference to BI.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by refhoops

I agree that all you have is BI and score the 1 point.
10-4-10 Player technical for goaltending a FT no mention or reference to BI.

This was a rule change just a few years ago. Prior to the change, it was a T to commit BI on a FT. It didn't make a lot of since...so they fixed it...violation only.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

This was a rule change just a few years ago. Prior to the change, it was a T to commit BI on a FT. It didn't make a lot of since...so they fixed it...violation only.

It didn't make much sense either.

Are spending too much time reading Rut's posts?

[Jimgolf]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

It didn't make much sense either.

Are spending too much time reading Rut's posts?

Yes, are.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

It didn't make much sense either.

Are spending too much time reading Rut's posts?

And that makes sense?

Pot....kettle....black.

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Are spending too much time reading Rut's posts?

With fire in the mouth he who speaks, suffer many painful scars, will. Herh herh herh.

(Talk like Yoda, you too can.)
http://www.yodaspeak.co.uk/

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

It didn't make much sense either.

Are spending too much time reading Rut's posts?

Nah, my original sentence was:

It didn't make a lot of sense...they have since fixed it...violation only.


I didn't like the wording so I edited but I kept the wrong sense/since.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

This was a rule change just a few years ago. Prior to the change, it was a T to commit BI on a FT. It didn't make a lot of since...so they fixed it...violation only.

Typo aside, I think they went "too far" in changing the rule (at least in theory -- in practice, I've never seen either GT or BI on a FT).

Play: While A1's FT try is in flight, B1 enters the lane, jumps and contacts the ball (a) just before the ball enters the imaginary cylinder, or (b) just after the ball enters the imaginary cylinder. Ruling: In (a), GT, and a T. In (b), BI; no T.

It seems to me that there's not much difference between those plays, and they should be treated the same.

[ChuckElias]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Play: While A1's FT try is in flight, B1 enters the lane, jumps and contacts the ball (a) just before the ball enters the imaginary cylinder, or (b) just after the ball enters the imaginary cylinder. Ruling: In (a), GT, and a T. In (b), BI; no T.

It seems to me that there's not much difference between those plays, and they should be treated the same.

What you say seems reasonable, Bob. But the reason for the rule change was not the play you mention in (a). The reason for the rule change was to penalize blocking the FT on the way up, immediately out of the shooter's hand.

Picture this very familiar scenario. Team A is down by 2 points and A1 is awarded 2 FTs in the closing seconds of the 4th quarter. A1 misses the first FT. We all know what's going to happen next, right? A1 is going to miss the FT intentionally and attempt to get the rebound for a put-back to tie the game.

What's the best defense against this possibility? Block the FT as soon as it is out of the shooter's hand. Before the rule change, it was simply 1 point and the ball was awarded to Team B. But this clearly is an unfair use of the rule. So to prevent teams from doing that in the closing seconds, the rule committee added the extra penalty of the T. This way, Team A still has a chance to tie or win the game. (The reason it's not a T for BI is that it's possible to commit BI while genuinely trying for the rebound; that is, while making a "basketball play". GT during a FT can never be considered a "basketball play".)

So, as unlikely as it seems, I think it's a good rule. To treat your examples (a) and (b) the same way makes sense, as I said. But to implement it, you'd need to penalize some forms of GT differently from other forms.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by ChuckElias

The reason for the rule change was to penalize blocking the FT on the way up, immediately out of the shooter's hand.

Picture this very familiar scenario. Team A is down by 2 points and A1 is awarded 2 FTs in the closing seconds of the 4th quarter. A1 misses the first FT. We all know what's going to happen next, right? A1 is going to miss the FT intentionally and attempt to get the rebound for a put-back to tie the game.

What's the best defense against this possibility? Block the FT as soon as it is out of the shooter's hand. Before the rule change, it was simply 1 point and the ball was awarded to Team B. But this clearly is an unfair use of the rule. So to prevent teams from doing that in the closing seconds, the rule committee added the extra penalty of the T. This way, Team A still has a chance to tie or win the game.

And another good point by Chuck....

Only on a free-throw can GT be called if the ball is touched on the way up by an opponent of the FT shooter. All other forms of goaltending occur when the ball is on the way down.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Typo aside, I think they went "too far" in changing the rule (at least in theory -- in practice, I've never seen either GT or BI on a FT).

Play: While A1's FT try is in flight, B1 enters the lane, jumps and contacts the ball (a) just before the ball enters the imaginary cylinder, or (b) just after the ball enters the imaginary cylinder. Ruling: In (a), GT, and a T. In (b), BI; no T.

It seems to me that there's not much difference between those plays, and they should be treated the same.

True. But the more likely BI case (and the one that the change was really intended to address) is after the ball hits the rim, rolls around the rim, and is maybe coming out but is still on the rim when A3 goes up and dunks it or B3 grabs it off the rim.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

And that makes sense?

Pot....kettle....black.

That one's a classic, guys!

Glad that I could provide some further amusement while attempting to have a little fun with Camron.

And Dan, I love the Yoda link, thanks!

[Nevadaref]

Actually, I like the Yoda link so much that I started playing around with it and it occurred to me to put in a few of the questions from last year's NFHS Part 1 exam and see what they would be like in Yoda-speak, since they don't seem to make much sense in English anyway.

English:

The net shall be constructed so it will momentarily check the ball as it passes through.
Yoda-speak:
The net shall be constructed so, momentarily check the ball as it passes through, will it.

English:

When play is resumed by a throw-in after a double foul occurs, it takes place at the spot closest to the fouls.

Yoda-speak:
When resumed by a throw-in after a double foul occurs, play is, to the fouls it takes place at the spot closest.

English:

The ball does not become dead until the try or tap ends, or until the airborne shooter returns to the floor when the defense commits an excessively swinging elbow violation.
Yoda-speak:
The ball becomes dead until the try or tap ends not, or to the floor until the airborne shooter returns when the defense commits an excessively swinging elbow violation.