Need some help on a free throw situation.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

...B4 accidentally steps in early. In order to ensure that A1 doesn't get 3 chances for 2 shots, B4 lets A1 release then pulls A1 into the lane. What do we have? By Nevs. interp, we call both violations....on B4 and A1 (since A1 was in the lane before the ball hit), wipe the bucket, probably a foul on B4, and award a substitute throw, .

Boy, the original premise of this thread sure has gone off to La-La Land.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Situation: 10 seconds remaining...A1 on the line for two after being fouled while shooting....and not in the bonus. B4 accidentally steps in early. In order to ensure that A1 doesn't get 3 chances for 2 shots, B4 lets A1 release then pulls A1 into the lane. What do we have? By Nevs. interp, we call both violations....on B4 and A1 (since A1 was in the lane before the ball hit), wipe the bucket, probably a foul on B4, and award a substitute throw, .

And Dan says that I come up with some 3rd World plays!

BTW my ruling is a lane violation on B4 as well as an INTENTIONAL PERSONAL FOUL. However, in order to count the FT still must be attempted from behind the line.

Therefore, in this particular instance the FT won't count if the shooter is pulled or pushed over the line, but a substitute throw will be awarded.
If the shooter were pulled six feet into the lane before tossing the ball up and into the basket, there is no way that I could defend scoring it.

EDITED: I changed my mind on this ruling!

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Do we really need these $10.00 words?

Talk to Snaqwells. He has tossed out "conflating" twice in the past four months.

I had to look it up the first time.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Boy, the original premise of this thread sure has gone off to La-La Land.

Hey, its important to be clear that some rulings are not ALWAYS right. Even if it is not this situation, this is the type of scenario where some officials get into trouble and make poor decisions....by adjudicating the game based on paraphrased rules and treating things that usually apply as something that always applies or by ignoring the spirit of the rule and calling it strictly by the book.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Hey, its important to be clear that some rulings are not ALWAYS right. Even if it is not this situation, this is the type of scenario where some officials get into trouble and make poor decisions....by adjudicating the game based on paraphrased rules and treating things that usually apply as something that always applies or by ignoring the spirit of the rule and calling it strictly by the book.

Camron,
Please tell me if you would count the basket in these two situations.
1. A1 is driving to the basket and is fouled by B1 who pushes him while he is in the act of shooting. The push causes A1 to travel before he releases his try for goal. The attempt is successful.

2. Same play only A1 is near the sideline and the push causes A1 to step OOB prior to the release of the try. The attempt is successful.


I believe that these plays more clearly illustrate the point at hand.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Camron,
Please tell me if you would count the basket in these two situations.
1. A1 is driving to the basket and is fouled by B1 who pushes him while he is in the act of shooting. The push causes A1 to travel before he releases his try for goal. The attempt is successful.

2. Same play only A1 is near the sideline and the push causes A1 to step OOB prior to the release of the try. The attempt is successful.


I believe that these plays more clearly illustrate the point at hand.

Apples and oranges.

In both your plays, A1 violates BEFORE the shot is released...violations that potentially aided A1 in making the shot and ones that may have happened anyway.

In my situation, the shot is away, the FT shooter is not at risk of stepping across the line (and stepping on the FT line is only relevant regarding a possible rebound, not the success of the shot) when a player from B caused A to step on the line.

FWIW, I'm disallowing the shot in your two plays....again...apples and oranges.

Recall this following situation and how it is nearly unanimously called: A1 driving and going up for the shot obviously gets hit across the arm (or gets pushed) by B1. A1 subsequently crashes into B4 (who has LGP). Call: Foul on B1....subsequent contact ignored. We simply consider B1's foul to have caused the subdquent contact and do not penalize A1 at all.

The rules are a framework for typical situations but merely guideline for non-typical situations. When something not anticipated by the rules happens, we've got to uses the intents of the rules to do the right thing.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Apples and oranges.

In both your plays, A1 violates BEFORE the shot is released...violations that potentially aided A1 in making the shot and ones that may have happened anyway.

In my situation, the shot is away, the FT shooter is not at risk of stepping across the line (and stepping on the FT line is only relevant regarding a possible rebound, not the success of the shot) when a player from B caused A to step on the line.

FWIW, I'm disallowing the shot in your two plays....again...apples and oranges.

Recall this following situation and how it is nearly unanimously called: A1 driving and going up for the shot obviously gets hit across the arm (or gets pushed) by B1. A1 subsequently crashes into B4 (who has LGP). Call: Foul on B1....subsequent contact ignored. We simply consider B1's foul to have caused the subdquent contact and do not penalize A1 at all.

The rules are a framework for typical situations but merely guideline for non-typical situations. When something not anticipated by the rules happens, we've got to uses the intents of the rules to do the right thing.

Your framework/guideline concept is nice, but when we have a specific case play that tells us exactly how to handle a situation I believe that we should follow that instead of imposing our personal feelings upon the game.

FALSE DOUBLE FOUL
4.19.9 SITUATION A: A1 leaps high and is fouled by B1 as he/she taps the ball which subsequently goes through A's basket. A1 fouls B2 in returning to the floor. RULING: This is a false double foul. The foul by B1 does not cause the ball to become dead. However, the player-control foul by A1 does cause the ball to become dead and also dictates that no goal can be scored. Since the goal is not scored, A1 is awarded two free throws for the foul by B1. No players are allowed along the lane as Team B will be awarded the ball following the last free throw. If the last throw is successful, the throw-in is from anywhere along the end line. If the last throw is unsuccessful, the throw-in is from a designated spot nearest the foul. (4-1; 4-11; 4-41-1; 6-7-7 Exception c: 6-7-4; 7-5-5)


PS So if something that happens AFTER the release of the ball can't possibly impact the shot, why do we cancel a goal for a PC foul on an airborne shooter? Because the rule says so. Is that more to your apples and oranges liking?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Your framework/guideline concept is nice, but when we have a specific case play that tells us exactly how to handle a situation I believe that we should follow that instead of imposing our personal feelings upon the game.

FALSE DOUBLE FOUL
4.19.9 SITUATION A: A1 leaps high and is fouled by B1 as he/she taps the ball which subsequently goes through A's basket. A1 fouls B2 in returning to the floor. RULING: This is a false double foul. The foul by B1 does not cause the ball to become dead. However, the player-control foul by A1 does cause the ball to become dead and also dictates that no goal can be scored. Since the goal is not scored, A1 is awarded two free throws for the foul by B1. No players are allowed along the lane as Team B will be awarded the ball following the last free throw. If the last throw is successful, the throw-in is from anywhere along the end line. If the last throw is unsuccessful, the throw-in is from a designated spot nearest the foul. (4-1; 4-11; 4-41-1; 6-7-7 Exception c: 6-7-4; 7-5-5)

You show me where it is typically done that way in practice and then I'll consider it. You personal desire to call it by the book in opposition to widely accepted practice (even knowingly against what the book specifically says) suggest that perhaps the letter of the book doesn't alway reveal the intent of the rule....as the first page of the rule book establishes is necessary to apply the rules correctly.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

PS So if something that happens AFTER the release of the ball can't possibly impact the shot, why do we cancel a goal for a PC foul on an airborne shooter? Because the rule says so. Is that more to your apples and oranges liking?

You fail to understand that the PC foul after the shot is a direct result of the path chosen to take the shot itself. Now what if the shooter lands and, in following their shot, shoves someone in the back...we still count the shot if it goes. That is much closer.

The "right" call is not always be found in the book.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

The "right" call is not always be found in the book.

Disagree. All games created by humans are defined by the words chosen to describe how to play. By definition the only right call is the one found in the book. Any other call is just a personal opinion. Need I remind you that the NFHS has strongly stated that officials are not to eschew the rules in favor of their personal beliefs?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Disagree. All games created by humans are defined by the words chosen to describe how to play. By definition the only right call is the one found in the book. Any other call is just a personal opinion. Need I remind you that the NFHS has strongly stated that officials are not to eschew the rules in favor of their personal beliefs?

Once again, you miss the point.

"it is important to know the intent and purpose of a rule so that it may be intelligently applied in each play situation...." (NFHS Basketball Rulebook, preface)

The rules are written in a concise form to give the official a framework from which to call the game, covering the basic situations and some combined/complicated situations. It doesn't foresee every possible combination or sequence of events. It is up to the official to make the right decision given their understanding of the intent and purpose of a rules, not just the ability to read/recite the rule. To blindly apply a rule based solely on the letter of what is written in the specific rule as you insist, without regard to intent/purpose, is in direct contraction with the overall guiding principle laid out in the preface to the rules.

Sometimes, the more common situations make it to interpretations or casebook plays, but not always. One example is ignoring a throwin plane violation with 5 seconds on the clock....no direct support in the rules but has been established as the right thing to do....just this one was eventualy published in a case play. There are other less common situations that will occur but will never make it to the casebook but, at the same time, should be adjudicated with intelligence, not blind application of a rule not meant for the situation.

[Nevadaref]

Actually, I think that you are missing the point.

The principle at work in your example of ignoring a throw-in plane violation with only 5 seconds left is that a team should not be rewarded for doing something illegal. That would be the case if the official stopped the clock to call the violation.

Now please tell what benefit does the violating team get in any play proposed in this thread. I see no reward for the illegal action. Thus it should be penalized.

Even in your first example with a defender violating the FT lane space and then pushing or pulling the shooter over the line prior to the attempt contacting the ring, how in the heck would he know whether the try is going to be successful at that point?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Actually, I think that you are missing the point.

The principle at work in your example of ignoring a throw-in plane violation with only 5 seconds left is that a team should not be rewarded for doing something illegal. That would be the case if the official stopped the clock to call the violation.

Now please tell what benefit does the violating team get in any play proposed in this thread. I see no reward for the illegal action. Thus it should be penalized.

Even in your first example with a defender violating the FT lane space and then pushing or pulling the shooter over the line prior to the attempt contacting the ring, how in the heck would he know whether the try is going to be successful at that point?

They don't need to...if the violation is to be called as you suggest, they kill the made shot if it is made forcing the shooter to reshoot....if missed, they've lost nothing.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

They don't need to...if the violation is to be called as you suggest, they kill the made shot if it is made forcing the shooter to reshoot....if missed, they've lost nothing.

Except for the Intentional Personal Foul which was just called against them if the offender made contact on the play or if you are claiming that the defensive violation is done without contact, yet it still somehow causes the shooter to cross the line AFTER the release of the ball, but BEFORE it contacts the ring or backboard or enters the goal (which is a scenario that I can't fathom actually taking place), then besides the substitute throw for disconcertion an official may consider an unsporting technical foul as well per an NFHS ruling. However, the FT attempt still cannot count if made.

Quite simply, Camron, you are insisting on counting a goal that was illegally made. That's just plain wrong. There is nothing else to say about it.

What you are advocating is the same as counting a basket when the ball was on the ring and a player intentionally slapped the backboard to cause it to fall off. You may feel that the "right" or fair thing to do is to credit the goal, but the rules of the game don't allow it. The team gets other compensation, in this case that comes in the form of two FTs from a technical foul.

Sorry, partner, but there are clear rules about how points are scored and the officials must enforce them. Doing otherwise is unacceptable no matter how "right" or in the spirit of the game you think it is.

[sseltser]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Disagree. All games created by humans are defined by the words chosen to describe how to play. By definition the only right call is the one found in the book. Any other call is just a personal opinion. Need I remind you that the NFHS has strongly stated that officials are not to eschew the rules in favor of their personal beliefs?

I know the other post was off topic slightly, but your reaction there and here are completely in opposition to each other. Unless you are being sarcastic in an effort to anger people from buffalo, then I find it very difficult to give your subjective posts credit. Taking such a definitive stance like this one is rediculous when you posted something that was completely the opposite.

I would hope that you would come on and say that the other thread was completely in jest because we can't always tell when people are being serious on here (even with icons).

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Except for the Intentional Personal Foul which was just called against them if the offender made contact on the play
.

Who said anything about it being intentional....could have been inadvertant....and possible incidental.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

What you are advocating is the same as counting a basket when the ball was on the ring and a player intentionally slapped the backboard to cause it to fall off. You may feel that the "right" or fair thing to do is to credit the goal, but the rules of the game don't allow it. The team gets other compensation, in this case that comes in the form of two FTs from a technical foul.

Sorry, partner, but there are clear rules about how points are scored and the officials must enforce them. Doing otherwise is unacceptable no matter how "right" or in the spirit of the game you think it is.

Choosing to ignore a potential infraction is far different than penalizing something that is legal or calling something that never occured. Do you call a 3 second violation EVERY time when a player is in the lane for 3 seconds?