Rule 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."

Situation: A1 has the ball to attempt a FT. A2, in a marked lane space fakes a move into the lane in an attempt to cause B1 in the adjacent space to violate. No member of Team B violates.

Question: Do you penalize the fake, even tho nobody fell for it? Or do you only penalize the fake if it actually causes an opponent to violate?

It seems to me that the wording of the rule is ambiguous: "to cause an opponent to violate". It can be read to mean that he fakes "in an attempt to cause an opponent to violate"; or it could be read to mean that his fake "actually causes an opponent to violate".

What are your thoughts? I argued that it means the latter; that is, you don't penalize it unless it actually causes a violation. But my friend insisted that you penalize any fake. He called our board interpreter, who agrees with him. I guess I can live with that, but I'm not convinced they're right.

[If A1 is at the line and B1 fakes, then you could have disconcertion; but that's totally different from what I'm asking.]

Chuck

The case plays on the subject back up your argument. If the thrower fakes, it's a violation. If someone along the lane fakes, it's penalized if an opponent steps in.

Read the rule as two separate statements. Replace "Nor shall" with "shall not" to adjust for grammer.

"The free thrower shall not fake a try."

"A player in a marked lane space shall not fake to cause an opponent to violate."

I agree with you.

Heckuva question,Chuck!I had to crack the books on it,and I honestly can't see a definitive answer.The wording in the rulebook is poor and the actual sitch is not covered in the casebook.Common sense tells me to agree with you and TH--you don't call the fake along the lane by A1 unless it actually causes a violation.You could quietly tell the faker to smarten up,though.The problem is my common sense and the rulebook don't go hand in hand sometimes.I used to think that simultaneous(hate that word) personal fouls couldn't possibly be a false double foul either.

TH,

The casebook plays in this year's book all seem to deal with a fake that actually works. Is there a case in a previous book that deals with a fake that doesn't draw an opponent into the lane? I have old casebooks, so if you're thinking of a particular one, I could go look it up (and rub my friend's nose in it :) )

Chuck

I didn't dig up any old case books to look. You're correct that just because a play isn't in the casebook, doesn't mean it would be incorrect. But I believe we're correct, just based on breaking down the rule. Good luck with it!

Could an official's judgement be that A2's action were "disconcertation" (free throwing team's violation) and award the ball to Team B for throw-in at the nearest spot to where the violation occured?

I suppose the official could try that, but good luck explaining to Coach A that you are taking away their free throw because HIS OWN TEAM disconcerted the shooter!! Not a good idea...as stated above, if the fake on the lane doesn't cause a violation, we got nothing!!

dj

Why look for violations? There will be enough to call that are obvious during the flow of the game. I have witnessed more officials digging themselves into a hole by "looking" for fouls and violations. Knowing the rules is one thing, but applying them using good judgment is another, IMHO.
1. Trust your partner, 2. Referee the defense, 3. CALL THE OBVIOUS, and 4. Stay in your primary.

[Edited by Fox40 on Nov 14th, 2001 at 03:57 PM]

I don't think anyone is looking for violations, Fox. We're simply disscussing the rule, so that we may enforce it correctly.

Willie, only the opponent can disconcert the shooter.

Solid Advice Fox 40
 

Todd-

I am also aware that the FT team can not disconcert its own shooter. Just throwing out a "red herring". :D

Re: Solid Advice Fox 40
 

Who the hell is Todd?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by BktBallRef
[B]I don't think anyone is looking for violations, Fox. We're simply disscussing the rule, so that we may enforce it correctly.

BBRef,
I understand. I am just saying game management is just as important as knowing the letter of the rule. ---Fox

My apologies TONY
 

I made that post in a hurry and errantly entered the WRONG NAME. I am at fault, no evil intent was involved. Please accept my humble apologies.

I will NOT make that mistake again.:)

Any o' you homos. . .
 

Lighten up, Frances. ;)

Chuck

I was just yankin' Wally's chain.

Uh, Willie's chain. ;)