Free Throw Violation- Shooter with ball

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by lpbreeze

Well thanks but this is one that I just can't agree with. It is illegal but a ref will only blow it as illegal if it causes a lane violation. I just think it would be better off to call a violation even without a lane violation

Lah me......

Faking a free throw is NOT illegal. It is ONLY a violation IF it makes the opposing team violate. You have NO rules justification to EVER call a violation if the opposing team doesn't violate.

A little advice....take it fwiw......you need to quit thinking, learn the rules and then just call the game by the rules.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Faking a free throw is NOT illegal. It is ONLY a violation IF it makes the opposing team violate.

While I think that is probably how it's called in the very few cases where somebody tries to fake it, that's not actually what the rule says.

9-1-3b: "The free thrower shall not fake a try, nor shall any player in a marked lane space fake to cause an opponent to violate".

The "makes the opposing team violate" provision that you mention is applied only to players in the marked lane spaces. The part that relates to the shooter is pretty clear -- "shall not a fake a try".

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

While I think that is probably how it's called in the very few cases where somebody tries to fake it, that's not actually what the rule says.

9-1-3b: "The free thrower shall not fake a try, nor shall any player in a marked lane space fake to cause an opponent to violate".

The "makes the opposing team violate" provision that you mention is applied only to players in the marked lane spaces. The part that relates to the shooter is pretty clear -- "shall not a fake a try".

I'm not sure it makes sense to parse the fed rule book this closely Scrappy, it's harldy an example of clarity in writing.

IMO the point of that passage is to define the consequences of faking by players during FTs. Clearly (well... maybe not so clearly...) the intent is as JR interprets it. Penalized if you're faking as the shooter OR player on a FT spot AND your fake causes your opponent to violate

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Dan_ref

I'm not sure it makes sense to parse the fed rule book this closely Scrappy, it's harldy an example of clarity in writing.

IMO the point of that passage is to define the consequences of faking by players during FTs.

You may very well be right, and I've already said that I think Jurassic's interpretation is how it's actually called in the real world. But as written, it seems to differ from that "real world" interp.

[rlarry]

Originally Posted by lpbreeze

Ok but I just wish there was a rule against that type of thing. As for the NBA where player go in on the release and often they do before the shot I'm 99% positive I've seen it called. Maybe it was Karl Malone or someone who held the ball up and did a little hitch or fake

Nothing personal, but you keep citing the NBA. If your working High School, worry about High School rules. The NBA and HS basketball have little in common. As far as calling the violation, if you don't know something is against the rules, don't call it.

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

You may very well be right, and I've already said that I think Jurassic's interpretation is how it's actually called in the real world. But as written, it seems to differ from that "real world" interp.

C'mon... this is entirely too reasonable.

Maybe I'll go over to the boys vs girls thread for some excitement.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by lpbreeze

So I don't know the rules too well on this other than the traditional violations leaving the lane early, etc. For a shooter.
He had the ball dribbled and then put the ball up and pushed it upward to practice his shot. A couple of feet straight up above his head. Ball came down, caught it and then shot the ft. I called a violation. I've seen players practice their shot but without the ball. I'm fairly sure I got this right but I wanted to check. high school.

Also, does anyone have a link on the difference for backcourt NCAA vs H.S? ball off D player than off offensive into backcourt that is a violation but not in the NBA. Is it in NCAA?

1) I agree with Scrapper. *IF* it's a fake, it's a violation. As described, it's not likely a fake.

2) There's no substantial difference on the backcourt violation rule in NCAA and FED relating to the play you describe. It's not a violation yet, but will be if A is the first to touch the ball.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by lpbreeze

Well thanks but this is one that I just can't agree with. It is illegal but a ref will only blow it as illegal if it causes a lane violation. I just think it would be better off to call a violation even without a lane violation

Okay, the rule says it's illegal to "fake" a try. It does not say it's illegal to "practice" a try. The difference is key.

Why would a player "fake" a try; to get the defense to violate. That's not an issue with the current rules. Therefore, the shooter in the OP must have been practicing.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

9-1-3b: "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 added the comma above to show the intent and purpose of the rule, and also the way that it's been called...oh...forever.

If the FED had wanted different rules to apply to different situations, they would have used separate sentences.

It would have read:
b) The free thrower shall not fake a try.
c) Any player in a marked lane space shall not fake to cause an opponent to violate.

There's a reason that only one sentence was used.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Dan_ref

I'm not sure it makes sense to parse the fed rule book this closely Scrappy, it's hardly an example of clarity in writing.

He's channeling his inner Nevada.

Or it's some kind of IAABO thingy.....

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

I added the comma above to show the intent and purpose of the rule, and also the way that it's been called...oh...forever.

If the FED had wanted different rules to apply to different situations, they would have used separate sentences.

I agree that the comma fundamentally changes the meaning of the sentence; and I already agreed that your version is the way it's called in the real world.

Maybe you should submit a rule change proposal to add a comma.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

Maybe you should submit a rule change proposal to add a comma.

If people start to call the play by the way that you parsed the sentence instead of the way that it has been historically called, the FED will have to add a comma. Or maybe even a new case play. The present case book play 9.1.3SitA isn't helpful either. It can be read as being an immediate violation too.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Lah me......

Faking a free throw is NOT illegal. It is ONLY a violation IF it makes the opposing team violate. You have NO rules justification to EVER call a violation if the opposing team doesn't violate.

A little advice....take it fwiw......you need to quit thinking, learn the rules and then just call the game by the rules.

I was the 'C' this past weekend when the free-throw shooter did this. A defender violated the free-throw lane as a result. Got me off guard and I froze for a second. Luckily the Lead stepped in and made the call.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

I was the 'C' this past weekend when the free-throw shooter did this. A defender violated the free-throw lane as a result. Got me off guard and I froze for a second. Luckily the Lead stepped in and made the call.

What level? HS? Defense has no business entering the lane; unless the fake caused him to lose his balance.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

What level? HS? Defense has no business entering the lane; unless the fake caused him to lose his balance.

Sorry, I should have specified in the post. It was Women's JuCo so we were using NCAA-W rules.

In my sitch, the fake (or more accurately, the simulation) definitely caused the defense to enter the lane.