Player location during technical foul free-throw

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

No.

One day you will run into the situation where one coach will be talking to his players at his bench, and the other coach is gonna be asking you why he can't do the same thing. And your reply is....?

It's much easier to just follow the rules.

I use it too in cases where coaches (deliberately) "talk" to player(s) below the FTL in an effort to ice the shooter. The shooter deserves better, and when the coach is being a PITA, they will have to have me deal with your situation when it arises. By your approach, a coach ignoring the instruction is guilty of a T. I don't think you'd call it though. At least, I hope not.

IME, being too wordy has confused players and caused them to not understand what you said, causing the official to repeat themselves. Players often respond to officials' instructions that are direct. "Behind the free throw line" gives a player a direct thing to do. It's not as swift as "halfcourt", but it does meet both my and your concerns. I think I might try that.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

IME, being too wordy has confused players and caused them to not understand what you said, causing the official to repeat themselves. Players often respond to officials' instructions that are direct. "Behind the free throw line" gives a player a direct thing to do. It's not as swift as "halfcourt", but it does meet both my and your concerns. I think I might try that.

I find just "move back" works fine. I've never had anyone stay below the FT line in that instance. If they want to believe that I meant the division line, that's okay, too. If they ask for clarification, I give it.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

I use it too in cases where coaches (deliberately) "talk" to player(s) below the FTL in an effort to ice the shooter. The shooter deserves better, and when the coach is being a PITA, they will have to have me deal with your situation when it arises. By your approach, a coach ignoring the instruction is guilty of a T. I don't think you'd call it though. At least, I hope not.

What's the difference in that scenario to a coach deliberately talking to his players above the ftl extended? Is one foot that big a deal? And it might be the OFFENSIVE coach that wants to talk to his players. How does that factor in? Sorry, Juggler, but I don't have a clue where you're coming from on this one.

And where do you get a technical foul out of my "approach"? It's a violation under rule 9-1, and always has been. That's why I'd never call a "T"....the rules won't let me.

Simple procedure. Call the rule as written and don't make up your own. You'll never get in trouble doing that. Jmo.

[Back In The Saddle]

I agree that this is a ref perpetuated myth. But I don't think it deserves a place on BillyMac's list. I actually prefer to have the players back at the half line; I think you get fewer problems that way. I won't attempt to enforce this non-rule. I will tell the players to "clear the lane" and "move back" as necessary. But I'm not volunteering any specifics. And if I'm not administering the free throws, I'm back at the half line.

Does that make me partially a bad man?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

I agree that this is a ref perpetuated myth. But I don't think it deserves a place on BillyMac's list. I actually prefer to have the players back at the half line; I think you get fewer problems that way. I won't attempt to enforce this non-rule. I will tell the players to "clear the lane" and "move back" as necessary. But I'm not volunteering any specifics. And if I'm not administering the free throws, I'm back at the half line.

Does that make me partially a bad man?

Nope. You're not telling the players "half court" like Juggler recommends. All you're doing is making sure that the players conform to the actual rule. Big difference.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

...And if I'm not administering the free throws, I'm back at the half line...

BITS, I assume your speaking about a 2-man crew.

Shouldn't the non-administering official in a 2-man crew be positioned to watch the shooter just like any normal free throw while also putting her/himself in a position to monitor all the non-shooters?

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

BITS, I assume your speaking about a 2-man crew.

Shouldn't the non-administering official in a 2-man crew be positioned to watch the shooter just like any normal free throw while also putting her/himself in a position to monitor all the non-shooters?

Why can't he/she do both from the division line?? Standing there allows me to watch the shot and the benches and the players milling aimlessly around.

Originally Posted by rockyroad

Why can't he/she do both from the division line??

Now that's one helluva ref... the ability to see that the FTers feet are behind FT line from the division line is what I need in my game.

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by Ch1town

Now that's one helluva ref... the ability to see that the FTers feet are behind FT line from the division line is what I need in my game.

You mean you can't check that really quickly, then back out to the division line?? Or are you saying that knowing where the shooters toes are is more important than knowing what's going on with the other 9 players, both benches, and the coaches - especially in the middle of what could be a very heated situation (as T's quite often are)???

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

BITS, I assume your speaking about a 2-man crew.

Shouldn't the non-administering official in a 2-man crew be positioned to watch the shooter just like any normal free throw while also putting her/himself in a position to monitor all the non-shooters?

Yes, I'm talking about a 2 man crew. And in this specific case, I suggest disregarding the usual free throw mechanics. There is nobody on the lane for the lead to watch. Let him watch the shooter. If he cares deeply about shooter's feet, he can even move to where he can see them more clearly. However, I think he's better off devoting most of his attention to the other 9 players, and not worrying too much about the shooter.

As for the trail: Depending on what caused the T, it is very much in his best interest to closely watch the non-shooters. They've got time on their hands, and they're all in close proximity. That's never a fantastic combination. And if there's been very recent trouble...

Definitely non-standard free throw mechanics. But better suited to this unique situation, I feel.