Free Throw Violation- Shooter with ball
 

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?

Not a violation.

Is there a cite for that? I swear this is a violation in the NBA but I'm not sure for HS and NCAA. For me it should be a violation because he made a shooting motion with the ball---edit. perhaps you were referring to the second part. But back on the Ft. Could a player pretend to throw the ball at the basket if it isn't a violation to draw the other team into a lane violation? I called a violation because the other team did step into the lane.

The only way I'd call a violation in that instance is if the action drew his opponent into the lane. Otherwise, it's nothing.

Oh, and it's much more appropriate to provide a citation about how this is a violation, rather than looking for one to explicitly allow it. If it's not against the rules, it's legal.

Really? I just can't understand that. So a player is allowed to do any type of shooting motion, even releasing the ball as long as its not toward the rim. Or fake a toss at the rim as long as it doesn't draw the other team into a violation? Well if its not in the rules it should be. I just think you can't make a shooting motion with the ball that doesn't go to the rim

Why not? It obviously isn't the player's actual shot, so why should an official care?

Does anyone know if this is an NBA or NCAA violation. I would be shocked if it isn't an NBA violation because I've swear I've seen it called.

I'm not an expert on NCAA rules, but as far as I know there's nothing in their rules that would make this a violation.

As far as the NBA, I swear I've never seen a violation called on a FT shooter.

back to "if the action drew his opponent into the lane"

So could a player do a pre ft where he motions the ball toward the rim not releasing it. Or releasing it straight up as in the OP. But no opponent steps into the lane say after multiple ft attempts. But then late in the game even though the shooter has shot fts before, an opponent is drawn into the lane? If I were a coach and a shooter is doing that I could tell my players to step into the lane to draw a violation on the shooter. Then of course, the other coach would be saying why would something that was legal before suddenly be illegal?

It's up to you to judge whether the action drew the player into the lane or he intentionally went in early. And if a player has done that all game, and then late in a close game a player goes in early (especially in NFHS where players have to wait for the rim) I'm going to err on the side of the free thrower.

If he changes his routine and someone comes in early, that's different. If it happens on his first FT attempt of the game, you have to make a judgement call.

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

If someone "faked" it, I totally believe it. It definitely is different when guys are going in on the release...but it doesn't mean there is an explicit rule against the motion. It's simply a rule against drawing an opponent into the lane by faking.

and one other thing that bothered me was the player saying he had done it before in other games and it hadn't been called. But then it is a violation in new game because the other team went into the lane.
I shall take this up with President of Basketball. who is... hmmmmm the dude with the highlighters on ESPN. :rolleyes:

The cite you're looking for is rule 9-1-1b. "The free thrower shall not fake a try, nor shall any player in a marked lane space fake to cause an opponent to violate."

This is a hold-over rule from when players (except the shooter) could enter the lane upon the release of the try. The intent of the rule is to prohibit the shooter from deceiving the defense into a violation.

Since the defense can't enter until the ball hits the rim anyway, this fake should not have any affect on them. This is why it's generally allowed.

At the NCAA and NBA levels, players are allowed to enter the lane on the release, so the fake is probably illegal there as well.

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 <b>NOT</b> illegal. It is <b>ONLY</b> a violation <b>IF</b> it makes the opposing team violate. You have <b>NO</b> rules justification to <b>EVER</b> 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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

He's channeling his inner Nevada.

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

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. :)

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 <b>will</b> 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.

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.

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.

That makes more sense. Thanks. :)

Women's juco, eh? Maybe after a few years - if you work hard - you'll get some women's wreck league games. :p

What follows is for Bob so he doesn't need to remove yet another of my clever posts...

What do you mean a simulation? You mean like a practice motion? Is that actually a *fake*?

Our crew did the Men's JuCo game also. (JuCo ball in VA is very unorganized) We got paid the same for both games but the crowd was bigger for the Men's game. :D


She put the ball on her hip with her right hand and did a full simulation of shooting with her left hand with an exxagerated follow-through. Come to think of it, maybe it shouldn't be considered a fake. That's probably why I froze, I didn't know what the he!! to think. Maybe I was dumb-founded. :o

Guess this is a situation I need to study up on, both HS and NCAA.

trouble maker! MODS!!

:p
Badnews, this is no way no how a fake. I don't even think the shooter was trying to draw her opponent into violating, which is a tactic that I've seen executed really well by the shooter without faking.

You're probably right...So maybe my instincts were initially correct that I shouldn't blow my whistle (which I didn't).

My head must have been somewhere else up until that moment b/c it was the 2nd free throw and at that moment I didn't (and still don't) remember if she did the same thing on the 1st free throw.