Question...
 

...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.

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.

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.

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 <b>legitimate</b> 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.

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."

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

Good point - though could you call it not for the contact but rather for the act regardless of actual contact? In other words, whether contact is made or not you're giving a flagrant technical for unsporting conduct based on the attempt to foul a free thrower?

No, you still can't.

Let me put it to you this way. If one player PUNCHES an opponent in the face while another player is attempting a FT, what do you think is the correct call?

A flagrant intentional foul.

And that would be the correct call in my scenario above.

If there was no contact, but you deemed that the player attempted to and felt it necessary you could then assess a flagrant technical, no?

Fouls are either personal or technical, and then CAN be either flagrant or intentional, but not both. So what you need to say above is flagrant personal foul.

Got it?:)

No it wouldn't. :)

Hrm...I'm obviously having a tough day. That said, I just went to get my rulebook. Here's what I read in 4-19-4:

A flagrant foul may be a personal or technical foul of a violent or savage nature...It may or may not be intentional.

So, why can't I have a flagrant intentional foul? Or is it simply saying that the act itself may or may not be intentional, but that doesn't change the type of foul?

Sorry for the confusion this morning. Ugh.

The latter. The word "intentional" in the Flagrant Foul definition doesn't mean it can be an "Intentional Foul."

I think that's correct. It's saying that the action may or may not have been done on purpose. It's NOT saying that it may or may not have been an intentional foul.

That's TWICE in one thread that I've been too slow by just a couple minutes!

The NFHS needs to change that wording to "It may or may not be deliberate." That is what they mean. They aren't talking about the category of foul there. The are using the word in its common English language meaning, not as basketball jargon.

Well you beat me by one minute and bob got me by two. :o

Thanks all...glad I got that cleared up in my cluttered head.

Now, hopefully I don't have a flagrant intentional technical violent and unsporting foul call tonight.

But you beat Nevada!

Shut up!

Plus I beat you with my response by less than a minute.

...in a false double multiple situation. :p

PS: Many officials struggled with fouls' definitions.

True - but I normally don't. Not sure what was happening this morning. Obviously it's what I get for taking a few years off before coming back last year...:D

Coming back to mornings? Did you work nights for a few years? :D

*Groan*

I'm definitely not, nor have I ever been, a morning person!

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

I remember when Clark Kellogg was at OSU, his pre-shot routine for a free throws was to toss the ball in the air (similar to an official tossing a jump ball at the start of a game), catch the ball, then shoot his free throw. There never was a problem until one game when the defensive player nearest Clark (probably a Michigan player) decided to jump in and intercept his pre-shot toss. Hopefully I described it well enough so it can be discussed. I believe the annoucers for the game said that the defensive player and his coach were arguing that was Clark's shot, which it clearly wasn't. Unsporting tech?

Naw, that one's easy. Just <b>agree</b> with the coach and his defensive player that it <b>was</b> a free throw. Then call goaltending <b>during</b> a FT, count the point and then give 'em the appropriate "T" too.

Same rule in both NFHS and NCAA.

Assuming it was still on the way up when the defense touched it.

Naw, tell 'em it was on the way down and it had a chance to go in. If they're stoopid enough to argue that's a "shot", then they're stoopid enough to believe that too.