Need some help on a free throw situation.

[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.

[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?

[Adam]

If B1 pulls A1 (or any Ax player) into the lane, I'm simply calling the foul. The spirit and intent of the rules is clear that they are designed to prevent one team from benefiting from this play. By disallowing the freethrow, B has benefited from an underhanded tactic.
Shot counts, intentional foul on B1, two extra shots for A1, pull everyone off the lane as A will get their throwin under the basket.

[Raymond]

In the original scenario defender violates and then A1 violates by entering the lane after releasing the shot. That's a double violation, go to AP arrow.

I fail to see how disconcertion would cause a shooter to enter too early. Camron has added all kinds of variables to justify his initial answer.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Camron:

I hope that my defense of your position is not the kiss of death to your position. Therefore: NFHS R9-S1, Penalty 4c states: "If there is a violation first by the free-thrower's opponent followed by the free thrower or a teammate and a violation by the free thrower follows disconcertion by an opponent, a substitute free throw shall be awarded." This penalty would imply that Camron is correct in scoring the free throw in the original play if in the judgement of the official there was disconcertion.

MTD, Sr.