Question...

[ABO77]

...can the free throw shooter be fouled in the act of shooting his/her free throw? If yes what happens by rule?

I know it will never happen, just looking for a loophole for fun.

[Nevadaref]

The ball is live so if there is a contact foul it has to be a personal foul.
The definition of a free throw is that it is an unhindered try for goal.

Therefore, I would deem this to be an intentional personal foul and impose that penalty once the current FTs were finished -- much the same as is done when a player crosses the boundary plane and fouls the thrower.

If the current FT was made it counts due to continuous motion. If missed, I would have to strongly consider a substitute throw for disconcertion. Not sure if it meets the definition, but not convinced that it doesn't either.

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

The ball is live so if there is a contact foul it has to be a personal foul.
The definition of a free throw is that it is an unhindered try for goal.

Therefore, I would deem this to be an intentional personal foul and impose that penalty once the current FTs were finished -- much the same as is done when a player crosses the boundary plane and fouls the thrower.

If the current FT was made it counts due to continuous motion. If missed, I would have to strongly consider a substitute throw for disconcertion. Not sure if it meets the definition, but not convinced that it doesn't either.

In order for anybody to foul the shooter during a free throw, that person will have had to violate in some way (leaving their marked space too soon or crossing the three point line too soon). So no need for a disconcertion call.

I agree in principle with the intentional foul call, though we're gonna get flamed on that one 'cause there's no rules support for it.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

In order for anybody to foul the shooter during a free throw, that person will have had to violate in some way (leaving their marked space too soon or crossing the three point line too soon).

I was envisioning the opponent in the marked lane space nearest the free thrower slapping the shooter on the arm without moving his feet. Not all shooters line up in the middle of the semicircle. If that were to happen, then no lane violation occurred.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

I agree in principle with the intentional foul call, though we're gonna get flamed on that one 'cause there's no rules support for it.

Sure there is. From the definition of an intentional foul, it's contact when not making a legitimate attempt to play the ball or player. Whointhehell would ever make a legitimate attempt to play the FT shooter? You can make a case for forfeiture also, language-wise, by using rule 5-4-1 if a team decided that it would be fun and giggles to pull this crap more than once. Just call it a travesty of the game.

The idea imo is to nail 'em with the most severe penalty that you can think of, so that they will have to think about it before pulling crap like that again.

Of course, being a law'n'order kinda guy, I have to admit that I also think that flogging should be part of the technical foul penalty too.

[jdw3018]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

The idea imo is to nail 'em with the most severe penalty that you can think of, so that they will have to think about it before pulling crap like that again.

Flagrant technical for unsporting conduct? Nobody else will do it if you sit a kid down for it.

Perhaps that's an appropriate action on the second instance, after having an intentional foul on the first instance and an appropriate "we're not gonna have that anymore."

[Nevadaref]

jdw,
You can't call a technical foul for contact during a live ball.

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Sure there is. From the definition of an intentional foul, it's contact when not making a legitimate attempt to play the ball or player. Whointhehell would ever make a legitimate attempt to play the FT shooter? You can make a case for forfeiture also, language-wise, by using rule 5-4-1 if a team decided that it would be fun and giggles to pull this crap more than once. Just call it a travesty of the game.

The idea imo is to nail 'em with the most severe penalty that you can think of, so that they will have to think about it before pulling crap like that again.

Of course, being a law'n'order kinda guy, I have to admit that I also think that flogging should be part of the technical foul penalty too.

Fair enough. And I agree about the flogging, especially for coaches