Missed FT Violation - FYI

[drinkeii]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Agreed, but we must also call by the intent of the rule. Since the intent isn't always known, it becomes a tough line to walk.

In the OP, I think the intent is to prevent (a) the running / jumping layup / dunk and (b) the easy rebound by the shooter. Since neither of those things is happening during the pre-shot ritual described, I would be unlikely to call it.

But I have always said that you have to be careful to not read into the "intent" of the rulemakers, since we have seen major problems with our constitution when we have battles between literal interpretations and trying to figure the intent of those rules.

My opinion - if the rule says this... do this. End of story. Otherwise, why have rules? If it wasn't something that needed to be addressed, it would not have been put in there. The rulemakers are not perfect - look at the Technical foul for going out of bounds changing back to a violation, because everyone felt it was too strict. However, some of these rules have been around forever, and some have been points of emphasis because too many people choose NOT to administer them, leading to a degradation of the game.

No, a preshot ritual which involves putting a foot outside the line before shooting probably doesn't gain an advantage. But I guarantee the first time you call it, it will make the player adjust their play to within the rules, or at least begin to do so, and isn't that our job? Keep the players safe, and administer the rules.

(and yes, I spell-checked!)

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by drinkeii

My opinion - if the rule says this... do this. End of story.

From the rules book: "Therefore, it is important to know the intent and purpose of a rule so that it may be intelligently applied in each play situation."

It's a conundrum. Sometimes I say "apply what's written", sometimes I say "apply the intent." In this example, I choose the latter. :shrug: