Faked free throw......

[jdw3018]

What if his "regrouping" causes a defender to come into the lane?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by jdw3018

What if his "regrouping" causes a defender to come into the lane?

Immediate violation, unless he's been "re-grouping" the same way all game.

[Nevadaref]

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.


We'll have to get rainmaker to tell is whether what is in red applies to both parts of the sentence or just the final part. It is a matter of sentence structure and I believe that the inclusion of the comma makes a difference.

[DownTownTonyBrown]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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.


We'll have to get rainmaker to tell is whether what is in red applies to both parts of the sentence or just the final part. It is a matter of sentence structure and I believe that the inclusion of the comma makes a difference.

My understanding of sentence structure would say that the red letters do NOT apply to the shooter - only those in marked lane spaces. Therefore, a fake by the shooter is an immediate violation whether anyone else violates or not.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by DownTownTonyBrown

My understanding of sentence structure would say that the red letters do NOT apply to the shooter - only those in marked lane spaces. Therefore, a fake by the shooter is an immediate violation whether anyone else violates or not.

That's my take too, but I'm no expert.

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

That's my take too, but I'm no expert.

Based on the structure, I'm with you on this. However, every year the committee ends up rewriting some part of the rulebook because it doesn't say what they meant. So who knows?

[Lotto]

The wording in the NCAA rulebook is different: "The free-thrower shall not purposely fake a try nor shall the free-thrower’s teammates nor opponents purposely fake a violation." This makes it clear that a fake is a violation whether or not anyone comes into the lane as a result.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by DownTownTonyBrown

My understanding of sentence structure would say that the red letters do NOT apply to the shooter - only those in marked lane spaces. Therefore, a fake by the shooter is an immediate violation whether anyone else violates or not.

That's what the sentence says, but whether this meaning reflects the intentions of the rules makers... well, it's anybody's guess.

[jkjenning]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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.

I've always thought that "to cause" was defining the intention of the faker, so that if the intent was to cause an opponent to violate it's a violation whether or not any opponent actually violates.

[tjones1]

Originally Posted by jkjenning

I've always thought that "to cause" was defining the intention of the faker, so that if the intent was to cause an opponent to violate it's a violation whether or not any opponent actually violates.

That's how I see it as well as everyone else.

[Adam]

Since the Fed starting holding players in the lane until the ball hits the backboard or rim, has anyone actually seen such a fake work?

[refnrev]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Since the Fed starting holding players in the lane until the ball hits the backboard or rim, has anyone actually seen such a fake work?

___________________________________________

I've never seen one at all!

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Since the Fed starting holding players in the lane until the ball hits the backboard or rim, has anyone actually seen such a fake work?

Yep. I've seen it once or twice....where the other team entered the lane on the fake.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by jkjenning

I've always thought that "to cause" was defining the intention of the faker, so that if the intent was to cause an opponent to violate it's a violation whether or not any opponent actually violates.

No, "cause" doesn't include intent. It refers to the result.