Why no free throws?

[paulis]

Had these two plays consequetively and got to wondering why is it that the defensive team is not awarded free throws if an offensive player commits a pc foul? (and assuming they are in the bonus): A1, on a try, commits a pc foul while airborne. B1 gets possession of the ball for a throw-in. Next time down the court, B2 goes airborne and attempts a shot, lands and then runs into A2. A2 received free throws (in the bonus). Virtually identical plays but with different consequences. Anyone know why it is that the defensive team receives no free throws if offensive player commits a pc foul?

[bigwhistle]

Look at the two situations. In the first situation, Team A can't score any points.

In the 2nd situation, since A1 has returned to floor before charging into B1, if his shot goes in, the points would count. Because of this, I would guess that the rules committee made this diferintiation.

I am sure that our resident historian, who probably has the original rule book to quote from when this rule was put into effect, will enlighten us on the situation.

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by paulis
Virtually identical plays but with different consequences.

They may SEEM virtually identical, but they aren't. The second situation is not a PC foul, since A1 no longer has possession and has finished the act of shooting, so it is a common foul. In the first, A1 is defined as an "airborne shooter" and takes or gives a foul as though he still had the ball. This is all NFHS. I haven't gotten all the other rules systems sorted out yet.

[Mark Dexter]

To quote Celine Dion, "that's the way it is."

As to why, I think bigwhistle has a fairly logical explaination - once A1 returns to the floor, his/her shot can count.

NCAA men's uses the same criteria (in NCAA men's, there is no airborne shooter rule) - once the shot is released, it will count (if it goes in) regardless of what A1 does (with the exception of goaltending/basketly interfering with his own shot).

[ChuckElias]

I did a college game this year in which I made both of these calls. First, I had a pass/crash. I called the offensive push against the Home team. Since they were over the limit, the visitors shot a 1-and-1. Less than 5 minutes later, I call a PC against the visiting team. Of course, no free throws, even though the visitors were also over the limit. The home coach is immediately up and yelling "They shot 1-and-1!! They shot 1-and-1!! Why aren't we shooting?!?!"

Fortunately, very soon after the second call, somebody took a time-out and one of my partners went to talk to him while I went to my position. After the time-out, I walked by the bench and asked "Did my partner tell you what you needed to know?" He answered yes. "But it's a stupid rule. They shouldn't make you guys make that distinction. Just do it the same way for all the offensive fouls."

I said, "Unfortunately, I don't have any say on the rules; and that's the rule for now."

He said, "Well, you can tell Hank Nichols that he can take that rule and shove it up his @$$."

I had to laugh right out loud at that and said, "Coach, you're giving me way too much credit. Hank doesn't take my calls, believe me!"

We both laughed. It's my first year of varsity, but I get along well with that particular coach for some reason. I was glad that we could have a (more or less) reasonable conversation about it.

Chuck

[Mark Padgett]

Ya' know - I've wondered about this rule myself. Let's take the example where there is a PC foul on A1 out in the middle of the court somewhere and there is no shot involved. Sure, team B gets possession, but there's still no shots (assume team B is in the bonus).

Maybe the NF uses the same theory here that they use in adding possession to the technical foul penalty (OK, OK, I had to give my soapbox issue one more try). By adding possession to the technical foul rule, they are saying there is more of an expectation of good sportsmanship on a team when they are on offense than when they are on defense because the penalty is harsher.

I guess they're saying that there is more of an expectation of playing good basketball when you are on defense than when you are on offense because the penalty for virtually identical contact (say, a push-off by the dribbler vs. a push by a defender) is not the same.

OK, maybe it's a bad analogy, but I still don't see why the defense doesn't shoot when there is a PC foul, especially when there is no shot involved to take away.

[dsavolt]

How many times have you seen this actually called. I can't say I have seen it called very often.

NCAA men's uses the same criteria (in NCAA men's, there is no airborne shooter rule) - once the shot is released, it will count (if it goes in) regardless of what A1 does (with the exception of goaltending/basketly interfering with his own shot).

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

These plays have to be divided, by how the NFHS and NCAA Men's and Women's rules define them. No matter, the two plays that you described, physically are not the same.


Play 1a: A1 is inbounds and has control of the ball (player control). A1 goes airborne and while still holding the ball makes contact with B1, who had obtained/established a legal guarding position before A1 became an airborne player. RULING: Under all three codes, this is a player control foul (common foul) by A1.


Play 1b: A1 is inbounds and has control of the ball (player control). A1 goes airborne, releases the ball for a field goal attempt, and before the ball becomes dead, makes contact with B1, who had obtained/established a legal guarding position before A1 became an airborne player. RULING: Under all three codes, A1 is an airborne shooter at the time of the contact. But the NFHS and NCAA Women's codes define this contact as a common foul, which is player control foul by A1. Under the NCAA MenÂ’s code, the foul is a common foul by A1, which is not a player control foul.


Play 1c: A1 is inbounds and has control of the ball (player control). A1 goes airborne, releases the ball for a field goal attempt, and after the ball becomes dead, makes contact with B1, who had obtained/established a legal guarding position before A1 became an airborne player. RULING: Under all three codes, A1 is an airborne shooter at the time of the contact. But the NFHS and NCAA Women's codes define this contact as a common foul, which is player control foul by A1. Under the NCAA MenÂ’s code, the contact by A1 is to be ignored, unless the official believes that the contact was intentional or flagrant. If, in the officialÂ’s judgment the contact by A1 is either intentional or flagrant, the foul will be a technical (intentional or flagrant) foul by A1.


Play 2b: A1 is inbounds and has control of the ball (player control). A1 goes airborne, releases the ball for a field goal attempt, and before the ball becomes dead, returns to the court and makes contact with B1, who had obtained/established a legal guarding position before A1 became an airborne player. RULING: Under all three codes, A1 has committed a common foul that is not a player control foul.


Play 2c: A1 is inbounds and has control of the ball (player control). A1 goes airborne, releases the ball for a field goal attempt, and after the ball becomes dead, returns to the court and makes contact with B1, who had obtained/established a legal guarding position before A1 became an airborne player. RULING: Under all three codes, the contact by A1 is to be ignored, unless the official believes that the contact was intentional or flagrant. If, in the officialÂ’s judgment the contact by A1 is either intentional or flagrant, the foul will be a technical (intentional or flagrant) foul by A1.


I know that a historical overview was requested by one of the posters, but I have too many irons in the fire at the moment to give one right now, but I will try to get to it within a week.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
I know that a historical overview was requested by one of the posters, but I have too many irons in the fire at the moment to give one right now, but I will try to get to it within a week.
[/B]

Please note that "bigwhistle" is being held personally responsible for this.He will be appropriately dealt with!Get the shoe polish out,Biggie.Someone is on the way to puke on your shoes!

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Please note that "bigwhistle" is being held personally responsible for this.He will be appropriately dealt with!Get the shoe polish out,Biggie.Someone is on the way to puke on your shoes! [/B]

That's real cold man!

[Oz Referee]

This is another area that FIBA is easier for referees - offensive fouls - no free throws. Easy.

[Mark Padgett]

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
These plays have to be divided, by how the NFHS and NCAA Men's and Women's rules define them. No matter, the two plays that you described, physically are not the same.

Other other Mark - the poster was not asking for the difference in penalties at different levels, he was asking if anyone knew the reasoning behind not having the defense shoot free throws (if in the bonus, I suppose) on PC fouls.

The short answer is: beats the poop out of me. I think it's just another one of those NF rules that isn't equitible, like the one I mentioned above.

Of course, trying to apply logic to the NF rulebook is like trying to turn Mike Tyson into a vegetarian.

[ChuckElias]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mark Padgett

Of course, trying to apply logic to the NF rulebook is like trying to turn Mike Tyson into a vegetarian.

"Mmmmm. Baby. . . The other other white meat" -- Mike Myers, in "The Spy who Shagged Me".

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

to: Mark P.

I am aware of what the Paulis requested. I am working on a posting that I hope will asnwer his question, but by breaking down the plays and showing how the three Rules Committees address these plays, I was laying the groundwork for BigWhistle's request for a historical overview.

Please bear with me, I hope have a posting within a week. I have too many irons in the fire right now, and this posting is last on the list of things to do.

[bigwhistle]

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
to: Mark P.

I am aware of what the Paulis requested. I am working on a posting that I hope will asnwer his question, but by breaking down the plays and showing how the three Rules Committees address these plays, I was laying the groundwork for BigWhistle's request for a historical overview.

I promise you...IT WAS A FACETIOUS REQUEST!! You really don't have to go to the trouble of getting this info.