Faked free throw......

[zebra44]

Happened in my BV game last night. Orange #55 shoots the free throw following his made basket, let's just say not perfect form, looked like a Sears catalog going up there. Next trip he is fouled in the act of shooting. On his first attempt( don't ask me why) he jabfakes a shot. Nobody bit and fell into the lane, probably because they were aware that it was the first of two. (He clanked it upon regrouping and shooting it for real). My understanding until I looked it up at halftime was as long as it did not cause the opponents to violate the lane, there was no violation on the shooter. I learned that it is an immediate violation on the shooter for that act regardless of the aftermath. On hi prior free throw and subsequent ones after that, he did not use the fake. I was under the impression that once he had established the non fake as part of his FT routine with his first one of the night, then when he faked to cause such misstep it would be a violation on him. Did not know it was instant whistle.

[jdw3018]

It would be a violation if you deem the "fake" was a deliberate attempt to draw others into the lane. But, what if he started, was distracted by something (fans, coaches, his own thoughts), and just decided to start over?

[zebra44]

That is allowed for in the rules. He can "regroup".

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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!